Process — Managing Technical Aspects →hardMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped

PMP Process — Managing Technical Aspects Practice Question

You are managing a construction project that is behind schedule. The project has non-critical activities with significant float. A key supplier has informed you that a critical component will be delayed by two weeks, impacting the critical path. You have already used up all schedule contingency. What should you do NEXT?

⚠ Common exam trap

A common mix-up: candidates confuse fast tracking (option A) with crashing, or they prematurely accept the delay (option C) without first attempting a schedule compression technique that is still viable within the project constraints.

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

✓

Implement crashing by adding resources to critical path activities, after evaluating cost and benefit

With all schedule contingency exhausted and the critical path impacted by a two-week delay, the next step is to implement a schedule compression technique. Crashing involves adding resources to critical path activities to reduce duration, but it must be done after evaluating cost-benefit trade-offs to ensure the additional cost is justified by the time saved. This aligns with the PMBOK Guide's guidance on using crashing when fast tracking is not feasible or has already been applied.

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

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

✗
Immediately fast track remaining critical path activities to make up the two weeks
Why it's wrong here
Fast tracking involves performing critical path activities in parallel that would typically be done in sequence. Implementing this "immediately" without a thorough risk analysis significantly increases the probability of rework, quality issues, and potential cost overruns. Such an impulsive decision, lacking prior assessment of its impact on project quality and overall risk profile, often leads to further delays rather than recovery.
✗
Request the sponsor to approve additional budget for overtime on all activities
Why it's wrong here
Requesting additional budget for overtime on "all activities" is an inefficient and wasteful approach to schedule compression. Overtime should be strategically applied to critical path activities, as only these directly influence the project's overall duration. Applying resources to non-critical activities, which possess float, will not shorten the project schedule and merely incurs unnecessary costs without yielding the desired schedule recovery.
✗
Update the risk register and accept the two-week delay as a residual risk
Why it's wrong here
As a proactive project manager, simply accepting a two-week delay as a residual risk without first exploring and attempting viable schedule compression techniques is not an appropriate response. This option indicates a failure to actively manage schedule variances and utilize available tools like crashing or fast tracking. Accepting the delay should only be considered after all feasible recovery options have been thoroughly evaluated and deemed impractical or too costly.
✓
Implement crashing by adding resources to critical path activities, after evaluating cost and benefit
Why this is correct
Crashing is a valid schedule compression technique that involves adding resources to critical path activities to shorten their duration, typically at an increased cost. The crucial element here is the prerequisite "after evaluating cost and benefit," which demonstrates a sound, analytical approach to project management. This ensures the chosen intervention is economically justified and provides the most efficient means to recover the schedule delay by focusing efforts where they will have the greatest impact.

Go deeper

PMP Process — Managing Technical Aspects Practice Question

Why each option matters

Option-by-option breakdown

Related to this question