PMP Practice Questions

Your pharmaceutical project team of 30 specialists is executing a predictive plan to develop regulatory submission documentation. You have one team member, a senior regulatory expert with 20 years of experience, who possesses unique knowledge critical to project success but consistently demonstrates poor mentoring skills, dismisses junior team members' questions as 'basic,' and has caused two junior regulatory writers to request transfers. The junior members are necessary for document production volume, but the senior expert's specialized knowledge of FDA interactions cannot be easily replaced. Your HR business partner has documented complaints but states the expert has not violated any policies. The project is at the midpoint and approaching critical regulatory milestones. What is your best approach?

July 27, 2026

You are leading a construction project that is 60% complete. During a routine team performance assessment, you discover that your site supervisor has been consistently inflating progress reports to make their team appear more productive. Upon investigation, you learn the supervisor was responding to intense pressure from the construction manager to meet aggressive milestones, and feared their team would be viewed negatively. The actual progress indicates the project is approximately 3 weeks behind schedule. The construction manager is unaware of the misreported data and is making decisions based on the inflated reports. What should you do?

July 27, 2026

You are managing a government defense project with strict security clearance requirements and a hierarchical organizational structure. A high-performing team member has been consistently delivering excellent technical work but has begun circumventing the established approval chain by directly contacting the client's technical lead to expedite decisions. While this has accelerated some approvals, your project sponsor has received a formal complaint from the client's program manager about protocol violations. The team member argues their actions have saved the project two weeks of schedule delays. How should you address this situation?

July 27, 2026

Your predictive project is entering month 8 of a 14-month schedule. Three team members who were critical resources for the design phase have been reassigned to other organizational priorities by their functional managers, despite your resource management plan identifying them as needed through month 10. The remaining team has the technical skills but lacks the institutional knowledge these members possessed. The project sponsor is pressuring you to maintain the original schedule. Performance reviews show current team morale is declining. What is your best course of action?

July 27, 2026

You are managing a large infrastructure project with a team of 45 members across engineering, procurement, and construction disciplines. During the execution phase, you notice that two senior engineers who must collaborate on critical path activities have fundamentally different working styles—one prefers detailed documentation and formal approvals, while the other favors quick decisions and minimal paperwork. Their conflict is causing delays in design reviews that are impacting the project schedule. The procurement lead suggests reassigning one engineer to a different work package. What should you do first?

July 27, 2026

You are managing a critical infrastructure project for a utility company with a 36-month timeline and a highly structured governance framework. Six months into execution, your most senior electrical engineer, who serves as a technical authority and mentors three junior engineers, begins showing signs of stress and reduced engagement. Their deliverable quality remains acceptable, but they are increasingly absent from team meetings, less responsive to questions, and have stopped participating in design reviews. Two junior engineers have privately expressed concern. When you meet with the engineer, they acknowledge feeling overwhelmed but are reluctant to discuss specifics, saying 'it's personal' and they'll work it out. Your next major design milestone requiring their expertise is in five weeks. The project has no schedule buffer. What is the MOST appropriate course of action?

July 13, 2026

You are managing a complex manufacturing facility upgrade project for an automotive supplier. The project has a fixed-price contract with milestone-based payments. Your project team includes 12 full-time employees and 18 contractors from three different vendors. At the 60% complete point, you learn that two contractors from Vendor A have been socializing with your client's procurement director outside of work and have mentioned they could deliver certain components 'more efficiently' if contracted directly by the client, bypassing your organization. Your contracts manager confirms this would violate the exclusivity clause in your vendor agreement. The contractors are performing well technically, and replacing them now would delay the project by 4-6 weeks, risking a $200,000 milestone payment. What should you do?

July 13, 2026

You are managing a defense contract project with 35 team members across four locations. The contract includes specific earned value management (EVM) reporting requirements. At the month 9 performance review, you notice that one remote team of eight developers consistently reports 100% completion of planned tasks on time, yet integration testing repeatedly uncovers significant defects requiring rework. The team lead is well-liked and has been with the company for 15 years. Other teams have expressed frustration about the rework burden. Your SPI is 1.02 but CPI is 0.87, partly due to these rework costs. When you discuss this with the team lead privately, they explain their team is working hard and meeting their commitments as they understand them. What is the MOST effective way to address this performance issue?

July 13, 2026

You are leading a pharmaceutical product development project following a waterfall approach. During the detailed design phase, your quality assurance lead raises concerns that the technical lead is making design decisions without consulting the regulatory compliance specialist, potentially creating future audit risks. When you investigate, you discover the technical lead believes the compliance specialist is being overly cautious and slowing down progress. The technical lead has 20 years of experience and has successfully delivered similar projects. The compliance specialist is newer to the company but has deep regulatory expertise. Your project has strict regulatory submission deadlines with significant financial penalties for delays. How should you address this situation?

July 13, 2026

You are managing a large government infrastructure project with a baseline budget of $45 million and a 24-month timeline. At month 16, a critical team member who holds specialized knowledge about legacy system integration submits their resignation, citing personal reasons. This team member has been instrumental in interfacing with three key stakeholders and possesses undocumented institutional knowledge. The project is currently on schedule but slightly over budget (CPI 0.92). Your sponsor is concerned about the impact on the upcoming integration phase scheduled to begin in three weeks. What should be your FIRST action to address this situation?

July 13, 2026

You are managing a complex infrastructure project using earned value management and a predictive approach. Your project has a CPI of 0.92 and SPI of 0.88, indicating both cost and schedule challenges. During a difficult steering committee meeting, your sponsor publicly criticizes your leadership and questions your competence in front of other executives and your project team members who were presenting. The sponsor demands immediate corrective actions and threatens to replace you if performance doesn't improve by next month. After the meeting, your team members express concern about the public criticism, and you sense their confidence in the project's success is wavering. What should be your FIRST priority in responding to this situation?

July 10, 2026

You are managing a multinational aerospace engineering project with team members across five countries and three time zones, following a stage-gate predictive methodology. During the design phase, you discover that your lead engineers in Germany and Japan have been making conflicting technical decisions in their respective subsystems, each believing they had authority over the integration approach. This has resulted in incompatible design specifications that were just revealed during a scheduled integration review, three weeks before the gate review. Both engineers are highly respected technical authorities who report to different functional managers in a strong matrix organization. The functional managers are now involved and supporting their respective engineers' approaches. How should you address this situation?

July 10, 2026

You are managing a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility construction project following a waterfall approach. During the executing phase, you notice that your quality manager and construction manager have fundamentally different interpretations of the acceptance criteria in the approved requirements specification. The quality manager insists on FDA pharmaceutical-grade standards for all areas, while the construction manager argues that only clean room areas require this level, with administrative areas following commercial building standards. Both cite different sections of the 300-page requirements document. This disagreement is causing daily conflicts, delaying inspections, and creating team tension. How should you resolve this conflict?

July 10, 2026

You are leading a government IT system integration project using a predictive lifecycle with a dedicated team of 25 members. Six months into the 24-month project, organizational metrics show your team's velocity is 15% below the planned baseline, though quality metrics remain acceptable. During a retrospective session, team members confidentially share that the project's strict command-and-control governance structure, mandatory daily status emails, and your directive leadership style are demotivating them. Several high performers hint they are exploring other opportunities. However, the government client has explicitly required this governance approach due to previous project failures, and your sponsor strongly supports maintaining tight controls. What is the BEST course of action?

July 10, 2026

You are managing a critical defense infrastructure project with a fixed 18-month timeline and strict requirements documentation. Three months into execution, your technical lead, who designed the entire system architecture, submits a resignation effective in two weeks to join a competitor. This person holds critical knowledge not fully documented, and the remaining team members have varying levels of expertise. Senior management is extremely concerned about project continuity and wants to prevent knowledge loss. What should be your FIRST action as project manager?

July 10, 2026

You are managing a predictive project to implement a new financial reporting system. Midway through the project, your lead business analyst, who has been with the company for 15 years and knows the legacy systems intimately, announces she will retire in six weeks. Her knowledge is crucial for the remaining requirements validation and user acceptance testing phases scheduled over the next three months. She is willing to help with transition activities before leaving. What is your best course of action?

July 8, 2026

You are leading a predictive infrastructure project with team members from three different departments. During the third monthly project review meeting, you notice that members from the operations department consistently remain silent when asked for input, even on topics directly affecting their work. Later, one operations team member privately tells you they feel their opinions don't matter because engineering always dominates the discussions. The project requires integrated input from all departments to succeed. How should you address this situation?

July 8, 2026

Your predictive manufacturing project is entering the execution phase with a baseline schedule approved by all stakeholders. You discover that a key subject matter expert, who was promised to your project at 50% allocation, is now only available 20% due to competing organizational priorities. This resource was critical for your planned knowledge transfer sessions with the implementation team. The functional manager apologizes but says they cannot change the allocation. What should you do?

July 8, 2026

You are managing a construction project using a predictive approach with a detailed WBS and Gantt chart. Three months into the six-month project, you notice that one of your team leads has been consistently missing status meeting deadlines and providing incomplete progress reports. However, their team's deliverables are being completed on time and meeting quality standards. Other team leads have started complaining about the inconsistent reporting. What is the most appropriate action?

July 8, 2026

You are managing a predictive software development project with a team of 12 members. During the planning phase, you notice that two senior developers, who must work closely on the database architecture, have a history of conflict from a previous project. The project schedule is tight, and their collaboration is critical for meeting the milestone dates. Team morale appears positive otherwise, but you're concerned this unresolved tension could impact performance. What should you do first?

July 8, 2026

You are managing a large infrastructure project with a team of 45 members across multiple departments. During the weekly status meeting, two senior engineers from different functional areas have a heated disagreement about the technical approach for a critical deliverable. The conflict is affecting team morale, and other team members are beginning to take sides. The project is currently on schedule, but this issue could impact the next milestone in three weeks. What should you do first as the project manager?

June 17, 2026

You are managing a construction project that is entering the execution phase. During resource planning, you identified that three specialized technicians are needed for a critical phase starting in six weeks. Your functional manager has just informed you that due to competing organizational priorities, only two of the three requested technicians will be available. The project baseline assumed all three resources would be available, and this shortage will likely extend the project schedule by two weeks. What should you do next?

June 17, 2026

You are managing a multi-phase engineering project that is currently in month 8 of a 16-month schedule. During performance reviews, you notice that four team members who joined the project three months ago are not integrating well with the existing team. They frequently work in isolation, miss key communications, and their deliverables require significant rework. The original team members have mentioned feeling frustrated with the additional coordination effort. These four members were added to accelerate the project schedule, but productivity has not improved as expected. What is the best approach to address this situation?

June 17, 2026

You are managing a product development project for a manufacturing company. A team member from the quality assurance department approaches you privately and expresses concern that another team member from engineering has been taking shortcuts in the testing protocols to meet schedule deadlines. The QA team member has evidence of incomplete test documentation but is reluctant to raise the issue directly because the engineering team member is senior and well-connected in the organization. The project is currently showing green status, but you know that quality issues could have serious compliance implications. How should you address this situation?

June 17, 2026

You are leading a predictive software development project for a financial institution. A key developer who is responsible for the security module has been consistently missing deadlines over the past three weeks. This developer was previously a high performer. During a one-on-one conversation, you learn that they are dealing with a personal family situation that requires significant attention. The security module is on the critical path, and any further delays will impact the project delivery date committed to the sponsor. What is the most appropriate course of action?

June 17, 2026