PgMP Practice Test

Control Chart is used to distinguish between common cause variations, which are inherent to the process, and special cause variations, which arise from external factors. This helps in deciding whether to make process improvements or address specific issues.

Other options i.e. Pareto Charts (ranked histogram following 80/20 rule), Scatter Diagrams (quality management using 2 variables), and Histograms (2 dimensional bar charts) provide different insights but do not specifically identify the type of variation.

Scheduling a structured meeting with sponsors addresses root concerns, promotes two-way communication, and focuses on next steps that involve them. Sending repeated reminders or merely adding materials does not address their hesitations. Reassigning roles through senior management may escalate tensions and discourage the sponsors from sharing valuable insights.

These reviews help confirm progress against objectives, determine if deliverables meet requirements, and guide decisions on whether to continue or adjust the approach. They allow decision-makers to identify and mitigate potential issues early. The other responses focus on daily updates or administrative tasks or involve freezing changes, which do not reflect the real intent of these major checkpoints.

Regularly gathering updates from each project and synchronizing them with the approved communications plan helps maintain an accurate register and fosters transparency. This supports sponsor decision-making by providing up-to-date benefit realization details at the agreed-upon reporting intervals. Creating unique sponsor workshops or sharing unstructured registers often complicates stakeholder understanding, whereas waiting until the program end risks missing timely corrections or ensuring stakeholder engagement. Adhering to an established reporting cycle that focuses on relevant and actionable data builds stakeholder confidence and helps the program stay aligned with strategic objectives.

High-level cost-benefit analysis is the correct answer because it specifically involves quantifying financial benefits, which aligns with the requirements of Task 6. The other options focus on different aspects of program management and do not directly address the quantification of financial benefits.

Developing a phased funding and benefits forecast clarifies cost, schedule, and returns, which encourages the sponsor to grant necessary resources. Phased planning and stakeholder reviews show readiness for resource allocation. Accepting sponsor changes to retain approval can lead to significant scope or cost issues. Postponing cost assessments until later increases risk. Adopting a vendor estimate for rapid sponsor review may ignore alternate scenarios and needed flexibility.

Structured learning experiences that blend live instruction, practical labs, and direct support encourage participants to master key tasks such as file exchange (for example, using File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) while applying newly learned skills. This approach offers ongoing interactions, enabling better retention and addressing questions promptly. Recorded sessions without interaction rely on passive learning and do not build confidence in the new tools. Reading materials that concentrate on advanced theory divert attention from practical tasks, leading to gaps in effectively operating the platform.

Workshops facilitate interactive collaboration among diverse stakeholders, enabling the comprehensive collection and alignment of requirements. While interviews, surveys, and document analysis can gather information, they do not support the same level of stakeholder interaction and collective alignment as workshops.

Also, interview is a 1:1 collaboration; and Document analysis & Surveys are offline mechanisms for requirement elicitation.

A roadmap and estimates presented at this early stage connect major milestones to broader organizational objectives, helping the sponsor see the overall direction. The other answers incorrectly focus on rigid budgets, detailed tasks, or late-stage stakeholder actions, missing the need for strategic alignment and stakeholder buy-in from the outset.

Implementing a comprehensive support framework for users and technical teams ensures the system is effectively managed and utilized over time, thereby sustaining the program's benefits. While keeping track of software licenses, promoting the system, and addressing system issues are relevant, they do not directly ensure long-term effectiveness and benefit sustainment.

Quantitative surveys use defined rating scales and standard metrics to gather clear data across large groups. This enables comparison of feedback over time. Methods that rely on informal or unstructured input can weaken consistency and make it difficult to track changes accurately.

Thorough checkpoint sessions enable sponsors and governance authorities to verify whether results meet objectives. Single updates, a one-time review after all deliverables are completed, or fragmented approval from individual leads can overlook issues that affect overall readiness and coordination.

Arranging an interactive session where each group can discuss upcoming tasks helps maintain clarity and ownership. This approach ensures all participants understand expectations and fosters genuine alignment. The other actions place limited emphasis on open, two-way communication or shift responsibilities to other individuals or tools that may not fully address recent concerns.

Earned Value Management (EVM) is the correct technique as it integrates scope, schedule, and cost metrics to assess program performance by comparing the value of work completed against the actual costs. Cost-Benefit Analysis evaluates overall benefits versus costs but doesn't compare work value to costs. Net Present Value focuses on the time value of money, and Break-Even Analysis determines when revenues will cover costs without assessing work performance.

Gantt charts provide a visual representation of the program schedule, showing the timeline, dependencies, and progress of activities, making them ideal for tracking and communicating with stakeholders. The other options, such as risk registers and SWOT analysis, serve different purposes and do not offer the same level of schedule visualization.