CompTIA Project+ (PK0-005)Project Life Cycle PhasesHard
A project has repeatedly grown in scope because team members have been directly accepting client requests for 'small additions' without documentation or sponsor approval. The project manager now finds the project significantly over budget and behind schedule with no record of why. Which practice, if enforced from the start, would have most likely prevented this outcome?
- AIncreasing the project's contingency reserve
- BRequiring all change requests to go through formal change control before work begins
- CAssigning a dedicated risk owner to each identified risk
- DHolding more frequent status meetings
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: B. Requiring all change requests to go through formal change control before work begins
This scenario describes classic scope creep caused by informal, undocumented approval of scope additions. Enforcing formal change control—requiring impact assessment and CCB approval before any change is implemented—prevents unauthorized scope expansion and keeps the baseline intact. More meetings, a larger reserve, or risk ownership do not address the root cause: lack of change governance.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. A larger reserve absorbs impact but doesn't prevent uncontrolled scope growth.
- C. Risk ownership addresses risk management, not undocumented scope changes.
- D. More meetings improve visibility but don't stop unauthorized approvals from happening.
Scope Creep
The uncontrolled expansion of project scope without corresponding adjustments to time, cost, or resources, typically caused by bypassing formal change control.
- Often results from informal, undocumented requests being accepted
- Prevented by requiring all changes to pass through the change control process
- Leads to budget overruns and schedule delays if unmanaged
Memory trick: 'Submit, Study, Sanction, Save, Share' - a change must pass every gate.