Clarification on Rita 6th questions

Submitted by danny2012 on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 05:50

Hi everybody,

I need clarification for the following two questions and their explanations from Rita 6th :

P496 Q14

Rita Answer is C. I don't think so as it's impossible to provide an accurate estiamte of the actual costs with unclear project scope (see the underscored words in question above) at that time. I chose B. What's your opinion? Please elaborate your choice and reasons if possible.

P497 Q19

Rita described a situationas below:

When finishing a deliverable, your team report to you that the deliverable meets the requirements in the contract but won't provide the functionality the customer needs; and consequently, the delivery might be late because of the need to meet the functionality as well. (the consequence is my own understanding in the context.)  

My question: is it possible that a deliverable meets requirements in the contract but won't provide the functionality needed by customer? To me, the functionality is part of the requirements in most cases and must be met. 

Supposing the project is rare case whose only purpose is to improve some non-functional requirements  like performance, stability or scalability, the requirements will not involve functionality. In this case, functionality is not part of the contract (specifically, the SOW or requirements in the contract). Then the project team don't need to deliver functionality to customer at all and the deliverable should be able to be delivered without delay. In another word, the situation won't be a problem to the team.

I just don't get the situation quite well. I think it's quite confusing. Please share your understanding with me.

thanks!

- Danny

 

Forums: 
PMP / CAPM exam Question bank
  • Log in to post comments
  • 1030 reads

projmanpro

Sat, 05/05/2012 - 07:03

Rita PMP Exam Prep Page 496, Q14. 

You have always been asked by your management to cut your project estimate by 10% after you have given it to them. The scope of your new project is unclear and there are over 30 stakeholders.Management expects a 25 percent reduction in downtime as a result of the project. Which of the following is the BEST course of action in this situation?
A. Replan to achive a 35% improvement in downtime.
B. Reduce the estimate and note the changes in the risk response plan.
C. Provide an accurate estimate of the actual costs and be able to support it.
D. Meet with the team to identify where you can find 10% savings.
 

I have explained it in details in this thread http://www.pmptrend.com/index.php/en/forum/11-Questions-Answers-Queries-Infos-Etc/126-Rita-PMP-Prep-Exam-Page-496-Q-14--Explained#126

 

 On your second question Danny, here is my answer:

YES it is possible, though ideally it must be avoided. If this happens, meaning there was a failure in the preparation of the scope of works and identification of requirements by the customer or end-user and stakeholders. In fact, this is one of the risk that must have been identified from the beginning of the project's initiating and planning.

danny2012

Sat, 05/05/2012 - 16:07

Thanks for the explanation and the sharing of your technique. I think the description about "the unclear scope" is really tricky and distracting. C is quite obvious without the distracter. I'm going to do more mock tests to get used to these extraneous descriptions in the context.

sspawar

Sat, 05/05/2012 - 16:12

Q14

Management is asking to cut estimate down , in this scenario option C is appealing to adhere with accurate and actual cost eatimate- dont go on PMBOK terminology, just accept the meaning situational. Means donot make the estimate fake.

you have 30stakholders to reply them while scope is not clear, hence what ever informtion you have based on that stick with the accurate nd actual cost based estimates.

Other options are not possible.

Q19

My interpetation is different:

Once agreement is formed and deliverbles is fulfilling the condition, then you cant say it was not truely assessed while defining scope, etcetra etcetra

Let see  in this way:

1st thing customer is providing incentive , it is extra payment over the agreemented price. it is an reward.

2nd thing is option B is not against of what has been defined in scope of deliverables, because you are explaining the customer the reality.

In perspective of above 2 points along with customer has tobe  taken to listen first as per PMI ethics option C is correct answer.

regards

 

danny2012

Sat, 05/05/2012 - 16:49

Yes, for Q19, you got what I was most confused about. If the functionality is not part of the contract, it (or the delaly caused by it) should not become an excuse of not issuing incentive to the vendor/seller. Further more, customer's need for the functionality of the deliverable should be taken care of as a change and is able to be settled through negociation. It could be resolved by adding more money or time to the project eventually.

With this understanding, I think the better answer to this question is to explain to the customer that you deserve the incentive as the deliverable meets the contract requirements or the acceptance criteria in the SOW, and that their need for the functionality will be treated as a change and is negotiatable. Sounds better? This answer is partially close to the answer B, which is "Inform the customer of the situation and work out a mutually agreeable solution"

What do you say, sspawar & projmanpro?

- Danny

sspawar

Sun, 05/06/2012 - 01:07

Yes you can be intensed more on this (what you have elaborated) point.

Regarding incentive -  Ritas answer also explaining : you might be able to win the incentive.

It is an appriciation part for functionally acceptable product in general .

If you 100% claim on basis of sow requirement meets, you will loose this definately.

Thats why it requires negotiation and make understanding with customer.

In short one line  - Incentive is a fee for functionally approved (accepted) end results.

Regards

Duplication :

Actually here I am not finding any edit or delete option,

I wanted to post reply in the end  and to delete the middle one but here is no such functions available.

 

 

projmanpro

Sun, 05/06/2012 - 08:18

You have the point Danny. In fact, this is a situational conflict, and we know the fundamentl that conflict must be resolved in favor of the customer. So from among the choices, which is nearest to this PMIsm? it is only choice B. There could be more detailed explanation, but im quite busy now, i cannot detail it here. Just follow my thread at www.pmptrend.com forum.

sspawar

Sat, 05/05/2012 - 17:08

Q14

Management is asking to cut estimate down , in this scenario option C is appealing to adhere with accurate and actual cost eatimate- dont go on PMBOK terminology, just accept the meaning situational. Means donot make the estimate fake.

you have 30stakholders to reply them while scope is not clear, hence what ever informtion you have based on that stick with the accurate nd actual cost based estimates.

Other options are not possible.

Q19

My interpetation is different:

Once agreement is formed and deliverbles is fulfilling the condition, then you cant say it was not truely assessed while defining scope, etcetra etcetra

Let see in this way:

1st thing customer is providing incentive , it is extra payment over the agreemented price. it is an reward.

2nd thing is option B is not against of what has been defined in scope of deliverables, because you are explaining the customer the reality.

In perspective of above 2 points along with customer has tobe taken to listen first as per PMI ethics option C is correct answer.

regards

danny2012

Sat, 05/05/2012 - 17:29

Don't pasting duplicate content,dude!