Question of priorities: Determine impact or Report PMI code violations

Submitted by Tim0922 on Fri, 11/09/2012 - 20:17

Hello,

This is my first post here, so please forgive if I do it incorrectly.

I am taking my exam in 5 days and am doing several practice exams.  I recently came across a question describing the unauthorized addition of electrical circuits to a building.  Among the potential answers were:

a) call a meeting to determine impact then notify stakeholders of impacts

b) immediately notify stakeholders of unauthorized scope change, then call a meeting to determine impact.

The correct answer was listed as (b) because of the PMI Code requirement to communicate errors to the appropriate body.  Rita's change process in her book has evaluate impact well above any notification.

Does the ethical requirement for reporting take priority over the proactive common sense approach to evaluate the impact before notifying stakeholders?  Why waste their time notifying them twice (one for the ethics requirement, one for the impacts/options notification)?

Any PMI specific thoughts to clear this up?  Thanks!

Tim

Forums: 
PMP / CAPM exam Question bank
  • Log in to post comments
  • 664 reads
admin's picture

admin

Sat, 11/10/2012 - 02:43

Immidate notification will be required. Impact is secondary, since there may be some actions tied after the notification is received.

Tim0922

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 14:16

Looks like I need to Perform Integrated Change Control on my thought process.

Thanks again!

Prakash999

Sat, 12/15/2012 - 07:26

 Tim0922

I had the same question - and trying to get my head around this process difference between changes that go via requested -> implemented route and unauthorized/scope creep changes.

were you able to get some understanding from Rita Mulcahy or some other source? Should notify be Step 1 ? request your help to get some pointers (books/sections) to spot the exact and complete  set of differences in process for unauthorized changes , that are completed