PMI PMI-RMP - PMI Risk Management Professional (PMI-RMP) Exam

Adding the identified risk to the risk register is the best action that the risk manager can take to address this risk. The risk register is a document that records the identified risks, their characteristics, their status, and their responses. By adding the risk to the risk register, the risk manager can ensure that the risk is not overlooked or ignored, and that it will be subjected to further probability and impact analysis to determine its priority and response strategy. Accepting the identified risk because other stakeholders feel that there are higher priority risks to address is not a good practice, as it may lead to overlooking a potentially significant risk that could affect the stakeholder’s team. Mitigating the identified risk in order to reduce the probability of impacting the stakeholder’s team is not advisable, as it may be a premature or unnecessary action without proper analysis of the risk probability and impact. Escalating the identified risk to the project sponsor and allowing them to determine the best course of action is not appropriate, as it may be an overreaction or a sign of lack of competence from the risk manager, who should be able to handle the risk identification and analysis process. References: PMI Risk Management Professional (PMI-RMP)® Exam Content Outline1, PMI Practice Standard for Project Risk Management2, Risk Management Professional (PMI-RMP)® Cert Guide3

According to the PMBOK Guide, the risk response plan is the set of actions that the project team will take to address the identified risks. The risk response plan should be reviewed and updated periodically throughout the project lifecycle, as new risks may emerge or existing risks may change. The risk owners are the persons assigned the responsibility of monitoring the risks and implementing the risk response actions. The risk owners should work with the risk manager and other stakeholders to evaluate the effectiveness of the risk response plan and make any necessary adjustments. In this case, the risk manager should ask the risk owners to review the risk response plan and see if there are any alternative or additional actions that can be taken to deal with the delay caused by the external team. Starting a quantitative analysis, crashing the schedule, or transferring the risk are not appropriate actions for this situation, as they are either too late, too costly, or too risky. References: = PMBOK Guide, 6th edition, pages 452-453; The Standard for Risk Management in Portfolios, Programs, and Projects, page 79.

The project’s contingency allowance is a provision in the project budget that is intended to cover known risks that may affect the project costs. The risk of increased fuel costs was identified and included in the contingency allowance, so the project manager should use it to process the freight invoices at the actual shipping costs. This is the best way to handle the risk without affecting the project scope, schedule, or quality. Requesting a formal change order from the customer (option B) is not necessary, as the project budget already has a provision for this risk. Processing the freight invoices for the budgeted amount and hoping the shipping company will forgive the difference (option C) is unethical and unprofessional, as it violates the terms of the contract and the PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Asking the project sponsor to cover the additional shipping costs on the company’s reserves account (option D) is also not appropriate, as the company’s reserves are meant for unknown risks that are beyond the project’s control, not for known risks that are already accounted for in the project budget. References: PMI, The Standard for Risk Management in Portfolios, Programs, and Projects, 2019, p. 72; PMI, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), 6th ed., 2017, p. 252.

The project manager should use the contingency allowance to cover the additional shipping costs, as it was specifically included in the project budget for such risks. This approach avoids requesting unnecessary changes or relying on external sources to cover the cost overrun.

The project manager should reassess risks by conducting a new assumptions and constraints analysis. This will help identify any previously overlooked risks and ensure that the risk register is comprehensive and up-to-date.

In agile projects, the risk burndown chart is used to monitor the reduction of project risk over time. If risk exposure is found to be increasing, it is essential to act immediately by selecting and implementing risk mitigation actions that can reduce exposure in upcoming iterations. The PMI “Agile Practice Guide” and the PMBOK® Guide state:

“In agile projects, risks are identified and managed continuously. When risk exposure is high, mitigation actions (often called ‘risk mitigation stories’) should be prioritized in the next iteration or sprint to bring exposure back to acceptable levels.”

— Agile Practice Guide, PMI, Section 5.7 (Responding to Risks in Agile Projects)

“Project teams may develop risk response actions as work items and prioritize these for execution in the backlog, particularly in iterative and incremental environments.”

— PMBOK® Guide, 6th Edition, Section 11.6.2.3

Therefore, prioritizing risk mitigation stories for the next sprint (Option C) is the most effective and officially recommended response.

An affinity diagram is a tool used to visually organize and group risks or ideas based on their similarities and categories. It helps in structuring the risks for further analysis and discussion. (Reference: PMBOK Guide, 6th Edition, p. 138)

 According to the PMBOK Guide, an affinity diagram is a tool and technique for the identify risks process that allows large numbers of ideas to be sorted into groups for review and analysis. An affinity diagram can help the risk manager to visually organize the risks identified in the pre-workshop survey by grouping them into categories based on their similarities or common characteristics. This can help the risk manager to facilitate the risk analysis and prioritization in the workshop, as well as to stimulate new patterns of thinking and generate additional risks.

Some of the other options are not relevant or appropriate for the question scenario:

The analytical hierarchy process is a technique for the plan risk management process that provides a method for comparing and ranking alternatives based on multiple criteria. It is not a tool for visually organizing risks.

A SWOT analysis is a technique for the identify risks process that examines the project from the perspective of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. It is not a tool for visually organizing risks, but rather for generating them.

Assigning probability and impact is a technique for the perform qualitative risk analysis process that assesses the likelihood and the potential effect of each individual risk on the project objectives. It is not a tool for visually organizing risks, but rather for evaluating them.

PMBOK Guide, 6th edition, pages 397-399, 414-415, 431-432, 441-442; PMI-RMP Exam Content Outline, 2015, page 7.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Extreme Programming (XP) emphasizes continuous feedback, early testing, and adaptive planning. When discrepancies arise, XP encourages identifying root causes and taking corrective actions without delaying value delivery.

Option D: Run a spike, identify what went wrong during implementation, and request a change to enhance value delivery (Correct Answer).

A spike is a time-boxed research activity used to explore a problem, test assumptions, and mitigate uncertainty in XP methodology.

By running a spike, the team analyzes what went wrong in implementation and applies the findings to ensure future iterations align with customer needs.

The PMI-RMP Guide states that “proactive risk response planning helps teams course-correct and maintain delivery momentum” (PMI-RMP Exam Prep Study Guide, 2021, p. 142).

The Agile Practice Guide supports the use of spikes, highlighting that “spikes allow agile teams to validate uncertainties in requirements, leading to more informed decision-making” (PMI & Agile Alliance, 2017, p. 89).

Option A: Release this version and leave changes to be done at the end of the project phase (Incorrect).

XP emphasizes continuous improvement and early defect resolution rather than postponing fixes.

Leaving changes until later may increase technical debt and reduce user satisfaction.

Option B: Arrange a workshop where all ideas will be discussed and take corrective actions ensuring value delivery (Partially Correct but Not the Best Answer).

While workshops help gather feedback, they do not provide technical validation of what went wrong.

A spike (Option D) is a better approach because it directly investigates the issue and leads to actionable changes.

Option C: Ask the development team to brainstorm and come up with suggestions that will improve the delivery date (Incorrect).

Brainstorming may generate ideas but does not analyze the root cause of the discrepancies.

Without a structured approach like a spike, there is a risk of guessing rather than using data-driven solutions.

Final Verdict:

The best answer is D (Run a spike, identify what went wrong during implementation, and request a change to enhance value delivery) because a spike provides empirical insights, leading to more effective corrective actions.

Identifying and analyzing assumptions is crucial in risk management because assumptions often hide potential risks. PMBOK® Guide states:

"During risk identification, it is important to identify and document assumptions and assess their validity... Assumptions may prove to be incorrect, resulting in project risk."

— PMBOK® Guide, 6th Edition, Section 11.2

This proactive analysis helps uncover hidden risks and plan for contingencies.

 

For a multi-million-dollar project with numerous risks, understanding the stakeholders' risk thresholds based on their risk appetites is crucial. This helps in defining the boundaries within which the project can operate and determine acceptable levels of risk. By confirming these thresholds, the risk management team can ensure that the project remains aligned with stakeholders' expectations and that appropriate risk responses are developed. This is a key step in the risk management process as per PMI guidelines, which emphasize the importance of aligning risk management efforts with stakeholders' risk tolerance and appetite​.

 

 

 

The risk manager should choose to exploit opportunities, as this response aims to maximize the positive effects of opportunities, which can help recover the project's contingency reserve and profit margin.

Exploit is a positive risk response strategy that aims to ensure that the opportunity is realized 1. It involves eliminating the uncertainty associated with a particular upside risk and making it happen 2. For example, if there is an opportunity to reduce the project cost by using a cheaper supplier, the project manager can exploit it by signing a contract with the supplier and securing the savings. Exploit is the opposite of avoid, which is a negative risk response strategy that seeks to eliminate the threat or protect the project from its impact 2.

The other options are not appropriate for taking full advantage of opportunities. Mitigate is a negative risk response strategy that reduces the probability and/or impact of a threat 2. It is the opposite of enhance, which is a positive risk response strategy that increases the probability and/or impact of an opportunity 1. Accept is a risk response strategy that involves acknowledging the risk and not taking any action unless the risk occurs 2. It can be applied to both threats and opportunities, but it does not actively pursue them. Transfer is a negative risk response strategy that shifts the impact of a threat to a third party, along with ownership of the response 2. It is the opposite of share, which is a positive risk response strategy that allocates ownership of an opportunity to a third party who is best able to capture it for the benefit of the project 1.