People — Leading Projects →mediumMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped

PMP People — Leading Projects Practice Question

During a project retrospective, the team identifies that a major risk was not properly mitigated because the contingency plan was not executed on time. The risk event caused a two-week delay. What should the project manager do FIRST?

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 lessons learned and update the risk management plan to improve future contingency execution

The first step after a risk materializes is to capture lessons learned from the failure to execute the contingency plan and update the risk management plan to improve future contingency execution. This aligns with the PMI principle of continuous improvement. Option B is wrong: the risk should be closed only after analyzing root causes and capturing lessons learned, not immediately removed from the register. Option C is wrong: while performance issues may be addressed, the immediate focus should be on process improvement rather than individual accountability, and this should be part of lessons learned. Option D is wrong: creating a new contingency plan without first understanding why the original plan was not executed on time is premature; root cause analysis should precede any new planning.

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

✓
Document lessons learned and update the risk management plan to improve future contingency execution
Why this is correct
After a contingency plan's execution proves ineffective, the most appropriate action is to conduct a thorough analysis during the retrospective. Documenting these 'lessons learned' captures valuable insights into what went wrong and why, preventing similar issues in future projects. Concurrently, updating the risk management plan ensures that the organizational process assets are refined, leading to improved strategies and execution for subsequent risk responses.
✗
Update the risk register to remove the risk since it has occurred
Why it's wrong here
Simply updating the risk register to 'occurred' and then removing the risk is an incomplete and shortsighted action. While the risk status should indeed be updated to reflect its occurrence, removing it entirely neglects the critical need to analyze why the contingency plan failed and what can be learned from the event. The primary focus should be on process improvement and knowledge capture, not just administrative closure of the risk entry.
✗
Identify who was responsible for the contingency plan and address the performance issue
Why it's wrong here
Identifying and blaming individuals for a failed contingency plan contradicts the core principles of project management, which emphasize process and system improvement over personal culpability. A project retrospective should foster a blame-free environment to encourage open discussion and honest assessment of processes, tools, and plans. Focusing on individual performance issues at this stage diverts attention from systemic problems that require organizational learning and procedural adjustments.
✗
Create a new contingency plan for the risk, as the original plan failed
Why it's wrong here
Immediately creating a new contingency plan without first understanding the root cause of the original plan's failure is a reactive and potentially ineffective approach. Without a comprehensive analysis of why the initial plan did not work as intended, any new plan risks repeating the same mistakes or failing for similar, unaddressed reasons. A thorough investigation into the failure points is essential before developing revised or alternative risk response strategies.

Go deeper

PMP People — Leading Projects Practice Question

Why each option matters

Option-by-option breakdown

Related to this question