CAPM Business Analysis Frameworks Practice Question
You are a business analyst working on a project to digitize the supply chain operations of a large logistics company. After completing the requirements documentation, you review the requirements against the organization's strategic goals. You discover that several key requirements directly conflict with the company's recently announced strategic objective to reduce carbon emissions by 30% within two years. Specifically, the proposed solution relies on increased just-in-time deliveries that would require more transportation, contradicting the sustainability goal. You bring this to the attention of the project sponsor, who is the VP of Operations. The sponsor acknowledges the conflict but insists on proceeding with the original requirements, arguing that the strategic goal is not feasible and that operational efficiency is more important. The project is already approved and has a significant budget. What should the business analyst do?
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Document the conflict and escalate to the steering committee for a decision on how to resolve the inconsistency.
The business analyst has a duty to escalate unresolved conflicts that threaten strategic alignment. Recording the conflict and escalating to the steering committee ensures that decision-makers with broader authority can resolve the issue. Updating the business case to align with requirements would be unethical if it contradicts strategy. Proceeding without action ignores the conflict, and ignoring it violates professional responsibility.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Record the conflict in the issues log and proceed with the project as planned, noting the risk in the risk register.
Why it's wrong here
Proceeding without resolution may lead to significant strategic misalignment.
- ✓
Document the conflict and escalate to the steering committee for a decision on how to resolve the inconsistency.
Why this is correct
Escalation ensures the appropriate level decides the trade-off.
- ✗
Update the business case to align the project's objectives with the new requirements, justifying the deviation from the strategic goal.
Why it's wrong here
This would misrepresent the project's alignment with strategy.
- ✗
Ignore the conflict because the sponsor has the authority to make decisions, and the project has already been approved.
Why it's wrong here
Ignoring conflicts of this magnitude is irresponsible and could harm the organization.
Visual reference
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every CAPM question from scratch — 487 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This CAPM practice question is part of Courseiva's free PMI certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CAPM exam.