PMI PgMP Exam Dumps & Practice Test Questions

Question 1:

You are managing a large program that involves 121 stakeholders. Your communications management plan outlines the delivery methods, messaging, and communication channels. 

Besides this plan, which document is essential to effectively disseminate information throughout the program?

A. Change requests
B. Earned value management results
C. Stakeholder analysis plan
D. Performance reports

Correct Answer: C

Explanation:

In the realm of program management, especially when leading a complex initiative with over a hundred stakeholders, communication is a fundamental driver of success. While the communications management plan provides a framework for how information should flow—such as specifying delivery methods (emails, dashboards, meetings), frequency, and content type—it is not enough on its own to ensure successful engagement. To truly tailor communications effectively, program managers also need the stakeholder analysis plan.

The stakeholder analysis plan offers deep insights into the identity, interests, influence, and expectations of each stakeholder or stakeholder group. It categorizes individuals by their level of authority, impact on the program, and preferred communication styles. This knowledge enables targeted, customized communication that aligns with the needs and expectations of various stakeholders. For instance, technical leads may require detailed specifications and status metrics, whereas executive sponsors may prefer brief summaries focused on high-level outcomes, risks, and benefits.

Without this plan, even a robust communication strategy risks failure. Program managers may inadvertently send irrelevant or misaligned information, leading to confusion, disengagement, or even resistance. For a program with as many as 121 stakeholders, failing to personalize communication can quickly spiral into widespread misunderstandings.

Now, let’s assess why the other options are not appropriate inputs in this context:

• A. Change requests are outputs of integrated change control and are typically triggered by project or program events. They do not inform communication strategies but rather are processed and then communicated.

• B. Earned value management (EVM) results represent quantitative performance data. While they may form part of the content distributed to stakeholders, they do not inform how to communicate or to whom.

• D. Performance reports are deliverables that result from monitoring and control efforts. They are not inputs for planning communication distribution but rather are outputs that are communicated based on prior stakeholder analysis.

In summary, distributing information effectively across a diverse stakeholder group requires both the communications management plan and the stakeholder analysis plan. The former outlines the process; the latter ensures that process is applied with precision and sensitivity to stakeholder dynamics. Together, they form the backbone of effective communication in program environments.

Question 2:

Which formula accurately calculates the earned value (EV) of a program?

A. Percent complete × Percent remaining
B. Percent complete × Cost estimate
C. Percent complete × Budget at completion
D. Percent complete × Cost of labor and materials

Correct Answer: C

Explanation:

Earned Value (EV) is a fundamental concept in both project and program management, serving as a key metric to evaluate progress. It quantifies the budgeted value of work that has been completed up to a specific point in time. The most accurate and widely accepted formula for EV is:

EV = Percent Complete × Budget at Completion (BAC)

This calculation gives a dollar value for the amount of work actually accomplished, based on the total planned budget (BAC). It allows program managers to make data-driven assessments about the status of their projects—particularly in terms of cost and schedule performance.

Let’s break down each of the provided options:

• A. Percent complete × Percent remaining – This is conceptually flawed. Earned value measures the value of completed work; multiplying percent complete by percent remaining doesn’t provide a meaningful or actionable value. This formula does not align with any standard project management methodology.

• B. Percent complete × Cost estimate – While this may sound close to the actual formula, the term "cost estimate" can vary over time due to changes and updates. Earned value requires a fixed baseline for comparison, which is why BAC (Budget at Completion) is used instead. Cost estimates can fluctuate, but BAC represents the approved baseline budget for the entire project or program.

• C. Percent complete × Budget at Completion (BAC) – This is the correct and standard formula. It reflects the planned value of the work completed and serves as a benchmark for comparing against actual costs and schedule progress. When combined with other metrics like Actual Cost (AC) and Planned Value (PV), it enables powerful performance tracking tools such as:
  
  

• Cost Performance Index (CPI) = EV / AC

• Schedule Performance Index (SPI) = EV / PV
  
  

• D. Percent complete × Cost of labor and materials – This oversimplifies the formula by limiting it to certain budget components. While labor and materials are significant, the budget at completion includes all program costs—such as overhead, equipment, risk reserves, and more—not just direct costs.
  In conclusion, understanding and applying the correct EV formula helps program managers maintain control, forecast outcomes, and provide stakeholders with reliable updates. The correct approach—multiplying the percent of work completed by the program's total planned budget (BAC)—ensures a consistent, accurate view of earned value.

Question 3:

Olive is managing a large program and has issued a request for proposal (RFP) to hire a vendor for a major part of the work. To qualify, vendors must meet certain minimum requirements, including employing at least four licensed electricians. 

This requirement is an example of which procurement-related concept?

A. Screening system
B. Scoring model
C. Vendor analysis requirements
D. Evaluation criteria

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

In program procurement management, it's essential to establish clear criteria to identify which vendors are eligible to participate in a bidding process. In Olive's scenario, the condition requiring each vendor to have at least four licensed electricians on staff is not a preference or a comparative advantage—it is a strict minimum requirement. This type of prerequisite is best described as a screening system.

A screening system refers to a predefined set of basic conditions that vendors must satisfy to be considered for further evaluation. It functions as a filtering tool, removing any bids that do not meet essential qualifications. These conditions are non-negotiable and are applied before any detailed evaluation or scoring of proposals begins. In Olive’s case, if a vendor fails to meet this electrician requirement, they are disqualified from the process entirely, regardless of how well they may perform in other areas.

Let’s examine why the other options are not appropriate:

• B. Scoring model: This is used after the initial screening to evaluate and rate eligible vendors based on weighted criteria such as price, experience, and methodology. Scoring models help rank proposals but do not serve to eliminate unqualified ones.

• C. Vendor analysis requirements: This phrase lacks precision and is not a formally recognized term in program management. While vendor analysis itself is a valid process, the wording here is too vague and does not specifically refer to mandatory eligibility conditions.

• D. Evaluation criteria: These are used to judge vendors who pass the screening stage. Evaluation criteria can include factors like innovation, price competitiveness, or customer references. However, they are not intended to eliminate candidates based on fixed minimum standards.

To summarize, Olive’s condition ensures that only vendors with a baseline level of technical qualification (i.e., four licensed electricians) can proceed further in the RFP process. This is a classic use of a screening system, which serves to reduce risk by ensuring that only capable and adequately resourced vendors are considered for detailed evaluation.

Question 4:

You are managing a program, and senior management has asked you to develop a document that outlines stakeholders’ key concerns, potential risks, and the objectives that the program and its projects aim to accomplish. 

Which document should you create?

A. Requirements document
B. Project charter
C. Business case
D. Scope statement

Correct Answer: C

Explanation:

When a program or project is being proposed, one of the first and most important documents to be developed is the business case. This document plays a foundational role in helping decision-makers understand why the program should be undertaken. In the scenario described, management is requesting a document that addresses stakeholder concerns, identifies potential threats, and defines the strategic goals of the initiative. These elements are all core components of a business case.

A business case is used to justify the initiation of a program or project by providing a comprehensive evaluation of its value. It typically includes the following:

• Objectives: Specific goals that the program seeks to achieve.

• Stakeholder concerns: Feedback, expectations, or worries that key stakeholders have voiced.

• Perceived threats: Risks or obstacles that may challenge successful execution.

• Cost-benefit analysis: Estimates of financial investment versus projected benefits.

• Feasibility and impact assessments: Evaluations of how the project aligns with strategic priorities and its anticipated effects.

Now, consider why the other options do not meet the need:

• A. Requirements document: This focuses on the detailed technical and functional requirements the program must fulfill. While important, it does not address the broader justification for the program or capture stakeholder risks and concerns.

• B. Project charter: Although the charter is essential for formally authorizing a project, it provides a high-level view that may include scope, objectives, and key stakeholders. However, it does not delve into the rationale behind initiating the program or address perceived threats as deeply as a business case does.
  
  

• D. Scope statement: This document defines what the program or project will and will not deliver. While it is critical for boundary setting, it does not capture motivations, stakeholder input, or risks in a strategic context.

In conclusion, the business case provides the strategic underpinning for a program’s initiation by aligning objectives with stakeholder expectations and potential risks. It guides funding decisions, establishes justification, and ensures all stakeholders are aligned on the program’s purpose and value.

Question 5:

You are overseeing the NHQ Program and working closely with your team to ensure all deliverables align with the scope requirements. Part of your role includes reviewing inspection methods that will be used to validate that completed work satisfies those requirements. Any issues identified during this process must be corrected before the work reaches the customer for their own evaluation. 

Which process are you engaged in to confirm the work aligns with scope expectations?

A. Quality control
B. Scope verification
C. Quality assurance
D. Planning

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

The scenario describes a situation where a program manager and their team are verifying completed work to ensure it aligns with the predefined scope and meets quality expectations. Any identified defects must be corrected prior to customer inspection. This aligns most closely with quality control.

Quality control refers to the process of evaluating specific project results to determine whether they comply with relevant quality standards. It involves monitoring, inspecting, and testing deliverables to identify defects or variances from expected outcomes. The focus of quality control is not on preventing issues before they happen (as with quality assurance), but on identifying and correcting them once the work is completed. In this scenario, the inspection of completed work and addressing of any found defects falls directly under quality control.

Let’s analyze the other choices:

B. Scope verification (also known as Validate Scope) is the process by which deliverables are formally accepted by the customer or sponsor. This occurs after internal quality checks like quality control have been completed. It involves the stakeholder reviewing the outputs to determine whether all requirements have been met. The activity described in the scenario is preliminary to this—it involves making sure the work is ready for the formal acceptance process.

C. Quality assurance is concerned with managing quality throughout the process. It involves auditing processes and procedures to ensure they are being followed correctly and that they lead to high-quality deliverables. Unlike quality control, which is product-focused, quality assurance is process-focused. Since the described activity involves inspecting and correcting completed work, not auditing processes, this is not quality assurance.

D. Planning refers to defining how the project will be executed, monitored, and controlled. While planning is foundational, it does not involve the hands-on evaluation or inspection of deliverables described in this scenario.

In summary, the activity of inspecting deliverables to ensure they match scope requirements and correcting any issues prior to customer involvement is a key aspect of quality control. This process helps maintain high-quality standards and ensures that deliverables are acceptable before being reviewed externally.

Question 6:

Your organization has entered into a formal partnership with a competitor through a teaming agreement to jointly pursue a major client project. This agreement allows both companies to leverage their strengths and collaboratively deliver the program. 

From a risk management perspective, what kind of risk response strategy does this represent?

A. Teaming
B. Exploiting
C. Accepting
D. Sharing

Correct Answer: D

Explanation:

The scenario describes a collaborative approach where two organizations—yours and a competitor—form a teaming agreement to jointly undertake a program. This partnership enables them to distribute responsibilities, resources, and potential risks associated with delivering the client’s requirements. This is a textbook example of a risk sharing strategy.

In risk management, sharing involves distributing the impact of risk (or opportunity) across multiple parties. When two or more entities collaborate to manage and address a risk, they are jointly accountable for the outcome. This strategy is particularly useful when both parties possess complementary capabilities that can reduce the overall exposure to risk. In this case, forming a teaming agreement allows both companies to balance their weaknesses with the other’s strengths, ensuring a stronger and more resilient delivery of the program.

Let’s evaluate the alternatives:

A. Teaming is often used as a business term to describe collaboration, but in project risk terminology, it is not defined as a formal risk response. While teaming is the method through which risk sharing occurs in this case, it is not the formal term used to describe the response strategy. Therefore, it is not the correct answer.

B. Exploiting is a strategy used to maximize the probability or impact of a positive risk, also known as an opportunity. For example, if there’s an opportunity to finish early or under budget, an exploiting strategy might involve increasing resources to seize that chance. This is not the case here—your company and your competitor are working together to manage potential risks, not capitalize on a sudden opportunity.

C. Accepting involves taking no proactive action to manage the risk. The organization acknowledges the risk and chooses to deal with it if and when it occurs. This is a passive strategy, unlike the active collaboration described in the question. By forming a partnership, both companies are taking deliberate steps to reduce exposure—not merely accepting it.

D. Sharing is the correct answer because it formally describes the risk response where two parties jointly assume responsibility for managing a risk. This often includes legal agreements, shared investment, and mutual accountability—precisely what is happening in the teaming agreement described.

Therefore, the act of forming a teaming agreement to collaboratively manage a high-stakes program exemplifies a risk sharing approach in project and program management.

Question 7:

During the final phase of a project, a project manager discovers that $27,876 remains from the initial $145,000 budget. Believing that the customer will appreciate additional features, the project manager uses the surplus to add enhancements that were not included in the original scope. 

What does this behavior represent?

A. Gold plating
B. Errors and omissions
C. Expert judgment by the project manager
D. Value added change

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

The situation described is a textbook example of gold plating, which refers to delivering more than what was originally agreed upon in the project scope. Despite the seemingly positive intent—using unspent funds to enhance the product—the act of adding extra, unapproved features introduces serious risks and violates core project management principles.

Gold plating often stems from a desire to impress the client or deliver what seems like "extra value." However, it bypasses formal processes such as change control and scope validation. This can result in misaligned expectations, extended delivery times, and unintended consequences like rework, compliance issues, or warranty conflicts. Even though there's unused budget, every modification must go through formal approval and stakeholder engagement to ensure that changes align with actual business needs.

Now, let’s look at the incorrect options:

• B. Errors and omissions: These refer to accidental exclusions or mistakes during project planning or execution. They typically necessitate rework or adjustments to meet the original agreed-upon deliverables. In this scenario, the manager knowingly adds new features, making it an intentional act rather than a correction of a mistake.

• C. Expert judgment by the project manager: Expert judgment is a valuable decision-making tool used in various project management processes. However, the action here is not an example of informed decision-making. Instead, it is an unauthorized deviation from scope management, even if the project manager has extensive experience.

• D. Value added change: While the added features may seem beneficial, value-added changes must be proposed formally, evaluated, and approved by relevant stakeholders through an integrated change control process. Without that formal approval, the change is not legitimate, and thus, cannot be classified under this term.

In conclusion, gold plating can appear harmless or even beneficial at a glance, but it undermines the integrity of project planning and stakeholder alignment. Professional project management requires discipline in maintaining scope boundaries, regardless of leftover time or budget.

Question 8:

A program manager named Andy finds that $25,000 remains in the budget as his program nears closure. To utilize these funds, he instructs his team to add extra deliverables that were not part of the original scope. 

What is this behavior called?

A. Value-added change requests
B. Zero-based budgeting
C. Integrated change control
D. Gold plating

Correct Answer: D

Explanation:

Andy’s decision to introduce new deliverables at the end of the program to utilize the remaining budget is a clear example of gold plating. This term is used when a project or program team adds work or features that were not included in the original scope, usually with the aim of delivering something “extra” or using leftover resources. However, these additions are not officially requested or approved by stakeholders.

Gold plating is problematic because it introduces scope creep, increases complexity, and may inadvertently affect integration, quality, and compliance. Even if the intentions are good, it undermines stakeholder expectations, introduces unnecessary risk, and sets a precedent that can compromise project governance. Rather than being seen as a bonus, the additional deliverables may cause confusion, delay closeout procedures, or even incur additional costs post-delivery.

Let’s evaluate why the other options are not appropriate:

• A. Value-added change requests: These are formally initiated and approved modifications that enhance the project’s value. They are reviewed through the change control process, considering their business impact and stakeholder alignment. Andy’s approach does not follow this formal review or approval path—it’s an internal decision to add scope arbitrarily.

• B. Zero-based budgeting: This is a budgeting method where each new budgeting period starts from zero, and all expenses must be justified from scratch. It has no connection to the act of spending unused funds or adding extra deliverables near the end of a project.

• C. Integrated change control: This is a structured process used to evaluate and approve proposed changes to scope, cost, or schedule. While it governs authorized modifications, it does not support unapproved scope additions made solely to use up excess funds. Andy’s approach completely bypasses this process.

In summary, gold plating, as seen in Andy’s case, is an unauthorized expansion of scope that can diminish the value of disciplined program management. It is discouraged because it violates scope control, may create legal and contractual concerns, and often introduces unnecessary risks that outweigh the perceived benefits.

Question 9:

Which type of analysis is most appropriate for comparing supportive and opposing stakeholders based on their influence, authority, and stance regarding a program?

A. Sensitivity analysis
B. Stakeholder analysis
C. Monte Carlo simulation
D. Force field analysis

Correct Answer: D

Explanation:

The scenario outlines a need to examine stakeholders who support and those who oppose a program, comparing their stance, authority, and influence. The best method for analyzing such dynamics is force field analysis. Developed by Kurt Lewin, this technique is used in change management to map out and weigh driving forces (stakeholders in favor of change) against restraining forces (stakeholders against the change). By doing so, it provides a clear visual and strategic framework to understand the balance of power and influence in a given situation.

Force field analysis is especially valuable in program environments where decisions must be made based on an understanding of stakeholder resistance and support. This tool helps in determining where to focus efforts—either by strengthening supportive forces or weakening opposing ones.

Other options are not suitable:

• A. Sensitivity analysis is used in quantitative risk management to assess how different variables affect outcomes, not stakeholder dynamics.

• B. Stakeholder analysis is helpful for identifying stakeholders and planning communications, but it does not inherently provide a comparative force structure between opposing groups.

• C. Monte Carlo simulation is a statistical method used to model risk and uncertainty, particularly in cost or schedule estimations, and is not suited to stakeholder attitude comparison.

Question 10:

You’re managing a program where one project uses new, untested materials. Concerned about delays and errors due to unfamiliarity, you train the team and let them experiment with the materials before official work begins. 

What type of action does this represent?

A. Preventive action
B. Team development
C. Quality assurance
D. Corrective action

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

In project and program management, a preventive action is a proactive step taken to reduce the likelihood of a potential risk or issue occurring. The scenario clearly illustrates such a situation: you foresee potential problems—such as errors, waste, or delays—due to the use of unfamiliar materials. In response, you take advance steps by training the team and allowing them to experiment, ensuring they are prepared before real work begins.

This approach is not reactive (nothing has gone wrong yet), nor is it merely about team bonding or evaluating current quality processes. It is aimed at preventing future problems, which is the essence of preventive action.

Why the other options are incorrect:

• B. Team development involves activities designed to improve team effectiveness, communication, or cohesion. While training may contribute to this, in the given context, the training's purpose is to prevent material misuse—not to enhance team unity.

• C. Quality assurance focuses on monitoring and validating that processes are followed correctly and that outcomes meet standards. While related to training and improvement, QA does not directly involve proactive risk avoidance.

• D. Corrective action is taken after a problem has already occurred to bring performance back in line. Since no error has occurred yet, this is not corrective action.

Thus, this is clearly an example of a preventive action, taken to avoid mistakes before they arise.