A 12-month portfolio has 9 proposed projects requesting $28 million against a $20 million budget: $8 million of mandatory compliance work, a $4 million platform enabler, a $6 million growth project with $12 million forecast benefit, and six other projects totaling $10 million. What funding decision do you take before the annual plan is approved in 3 weeks?

I would fund the mandatory work, the platform enabler, and the growth project, while placing the other six projects below the funding line. - A 10% portfolio reserve is $2 million, so only $18 million should be committed; $8 million plus $4 million plus $6 million uses that amount exactly. - I would cut the six lower-ranked projects from the 12-month plan rather than spread $20 million thinly across all 9 and underfund every delivery team. - The steering committee owns the final portfolio selection and reserve release; I would submit one recommendation with the six explicit deferrals, not nine separate funding requests. - At the 90-day portfolio checkpoint, I would reopen the first deferred project only if committed spend remains within $18 million and the funded projects still meet their benefit gates.

An 8-project, 9-month portfolio has a $24 million budget and 32 available engineers, but the integrated plan demands 40 engineers for the next 12 weeks: regulatory work needs 8, a shared platform needs 10, a revenue launch needs 8, and four lower-priority projects request the remaining 14. How do you resolve the resource decision this week?

I would protect the three portfolio-critical commitments and pause enough lower-priority work to keep demand at 32 engineers. - The protected work consumes 26 engineers, leaving 6 for the four lower-priority projects, so 8 requested positions must come out of the 12-week plan. - I would keep the highest-ranked lower-priority project at 6 engineers and pause the other three, including their discretionary vendor spend, rather than split specialists across four partial starts. - I can sequence work inside the approved $24 million envelope, but the steering committee decides any priority override or more than $500,000 of termination and restart cost. - After 4 weeks, I would check platform throughput and regulatory progress; paused work resumes only when the forecast shows at least 8 engineers available for the remaining 8 weeks.

A 7-project benefits program has an $18 million budget over 18 months; after 12 months, 4 projects have consumed $11 million and produce only $4.5 million of annualized benefit against a $9 million target, while the final 3 projects request the remaining $7 million. What continuation decision do you recommend at the next monthly steering committee?

I would hold the final three projects and release only a limited adoption recovery tranche before committing the remaining $7 million. - Realized benefit is $4.5 million divided by $9 million, or 50% of target, so the original benefits case is not strong enough for an automatic continuation. - I would authorize $2 million for the highest-impact adoption fixes and hold $5 million, cutting any feature work that does not move usage or the measured benefit baseline. - The business benefit owners are accountable for adoption, while the steering committee owns the decision to release the held $5 million or stop the remaining projects. - At an 8-week checkpoint, continuation requires at least $6.75 million annualized benefit, which is 75% of target, plus a signed recovery forecast for the final 25%.

In a 6-project, 24-month portfolio with a $30 million budget, Project Atlas reaches its design gate after spending $2 million and asks for $8 million to build; its forecast 3-year benefit has fallen from $15 million to $8 million, while another approved project can use the same $8 million for a $14 million benefit. What gate decision do you make within 2 weeks?

I would not pass Atlas into build and would place it on a time-boxed hold while protecting the alternative investment. - Atlas now offers $8 million of benefit for $8 million of remaining cost, while the alternative offers $14 million, a $6 million benefit advantage on the same capital. - I would cut the $8 million build authorization and allow at most $400,000 for 6 weeks to validate whether Atlas can restore at least a $12 million benefit case. - Because the gate commits more than $5 million and changes portfolio allocation, the steering committee makes the go, hold, or stop decision; the project sponsor supplies the revised case. - At the 6-week checkpoint, Atlas is stopped unless evidence supports at least $12 million benefit and no more than $8 million remaining build cost.

A 10-project portfolio is 7 months into a 15-month plan with a $42 million budget, and the new estimate is $46 million; Project Cedar still needs $3 million for $2 million of benefit, while removing optional scope from two healthy projects saves another $1 million without moving the final deadline. What decision pack do you take to the steering committee in 5 days?

I would recommend cancelling Cedar and removing the $1 million of optional scope to close the full $4 million forecast gap. - The portfolio is $46 million minus $42 million, or $4 million over; Cedar releases $3 million and the two scope cuts release the remaining $1 million. - I would stop Cedar at its current boundary, preserve reusable deliverables, and cut only the named optional scope rather than apply an indiscriminate percentage reduction across all 10 projects. - The steering committee owns project cancellation and cross-project baseline changes; each project manager owns execution after the committee records the decision and effective date. - The next monthly checkpoint must show an estimate at completion of no more than $42 million and no change to the month-15 portfolio milestone.

An 8-project program has a $36 million budget and a 20-month deadline; one workstream requests a $900,000 scope addition that adds 6 weeks and $2 million of forecast benefit, but project managers may approve only $250,000 or 2 weeks and the program director only $750,000 or 4 weeks. Who decides, and what do you recommend within the 10-day change window?

The steering committee must decide, and I would recommend conditional approval funded by an explicit scope trade rather than an unplanned budget increase. - The nominal incremental benefit is $2 million minus $900,000, or $1.1 million, but both the cost and 6-week delay exceed delegated authority. - I would cut $500,000 of lower-value scope in that workstream and request only $400,000 from portfolio contingency, keeping total program funding at $36 million. - The project manager owns the impact analysis, I own the recommendation, and the steering committee owns the schedule exception and contingency release; none of us should split the change to bypass thresholds. - Approval would include a 4-week proof checkpoint, and the remaining spend is released only if the benefit forecast stays at or above $2 million and the integrated deadline impact remains 6 weeks or less.

Two weeks before a board review, a 12-project, 18-month portfolio with a $60 million budget reports 9 projects green, yet the aggregate estimate has risen to $66 million, forecast benefits are down 20%, and demand for 4 shared architects is 150% for the next 3 months. What portfolio status and decisions do you report?

I would report the portfolio red and ask for immediate cost and capacity decisions rather than repeat the nine green project statuses. - The forecast is $6 million, or 10%, over budget, and 150% demand for 4 architects means teams want 6, leaving a gap of 2 architects for 3 months. - I would recommend stopping the two lowest-value projects if they release at least $4 million and 2 architects, then cut or defer another $2 million of noncritical scope to restore the $60 million ceiling. - The board confirms any strategic benefit reset, while the steering committee owns project stops and resource reallocation; project managers cannot keep projects green by hiding portfolio-level contention. - The board pack would include a 30-day checkpoint requiring a $60 million or lower forecast, named owners for the 20% benefit recovery, and architect demand no higher than 4.

A 6-project transformation program has a $25 million budget over 2 years; after a $9 million first wave, 1,000 users have had the new process for 3 months, but adoption is 40% against a 70% gate and annualized savings are $1.2 million against $3 million, while wave two requests $6 million next month. What rollout decision do you take?

I would hold the $6 million wave-two rollout and fund a bounded adoption recovery before expanding. - Adoption is 30 percentage points below the gate, and realized annualized savings are $1.2 million divided by $3 million, or 40% of target. - I would release $1 million for training, workflow fixes, and local champions, while holding $5 million and cutting new features unrelated to adoption. - The COO as benefit owner is accountable for usage and savings, and the steering committee owns the wave-two gate and release of the held budget. - At a 6-week checkpoint, wave two proceeds only if adoption reaches at least 60% and annualized savings reach $2.1 million, or 70% of the original target.

A 9-project, 16-month program has a $48 million budget; its shared data-platform project is 5 weeks late, three dependent teams are burning $600,000 per week while blocked, and a vendor can recover 4 weeks for $1.5 million if approved within 7 days. What cross-program decision do you recommend?

I would approve the $1.5 million recovery and pause blocked discretionary work until the shared platform clears its gate. - Four recovered weeks avoid $600,000 times 4, or $2.4 million of blocked-team burn, producing a net $900,000 saving before any schedule benefit. - I would cut $1.5 million of lower-value scope elsewhere in the $48 million program so acceleration does not create a budget overrun, and stop the three teams from burning against work they cannot complete. - The steering committee owns the vendor commitment and cross-project scope trade because the decision exceeds $1 million; the platform owner remains accountable for delivery. - I would run weekly recovery checkpoints and release dependent teams only after a 4-week integration gate proves the platform interfaces work end to end.

After 6 months, an 11-project, 24-month portfolio originally budgeted at $55 million is cut by 10% to $49.5 million; $14 million is spent and the remaining forecast is $41 million, while Project X needs $3 million for $1.5 million benefit, Project Y needs $2.5 million for $2 million benefit, and Project Z needs $2 million for $7 million benefit. What rebalance decision do you make in the next 2 weeks?

I would cancel Projects X and Y and protect Project Z, removing exactly the funding gap created by the new ceiling. - The current total forecast is $14 million plus $41 million, or $55 million, so the portfolio must remove $5.5 million to reach $49.5 million. - Cancelling X and Y releases $3 million plus $2.5 million, exactly $5.5 million, while preserving Z's stronger $7 million benefit for $2 million remaining cost. - The steering committee owns both cancellations and the revised portfolio baseline; benefit owners must sign the resulting $3.5 million reduction in forecast benefits from X and Y. - At the 60-day checkpoint, I would confirm closure costs, a forecast no higher than $49.5 million, and that Z has passed its next benefit and dependency gate.

A schedule has Start -> A(4 days), then A -> B(6) -> D(2) and A -> C(3) -> E(4), with D and E both feeding F(1); you must shorten delivery by one day, and crashing B costs $5,000 per day while crashing C costs $2,000 per day. Which task do you crash?

I would crash B by one day for $5,000 because A-B-D-F is the 13-day critical path, while A-C-E-F takes 12 days. - Crashing C is cheaper but leaves the 13-day path unchanged, so it buys no project-level schedule reduction. - Reducing B from six to five days brings both paths to 12 days and meets the one-day target. - The new plan has two critical paths, so I would flag that any slip on either branch now moves delivery. - I would spend the $5,000 only if one day of earlier delivery is worth more than that cost and the added schedule risk.

In a network Start -> A(3 days), then A -> B(4) -> D(3) and A -> C(2) -> E(2), with D and E feeding F(1), a supplier asks to delay C by two days while E is committed to start on day 5; do you approve?

I would not approve the delay as harmless because C has three days of total float but zero free float. - The paths are 11 days through B-D and eight days through C-E, so the C-E branch can slip three days without moving final completion. - C finishes on day 5 and E is scheduled to start immediately, which makes C's free float zero despite its three days of total float. - A two-day delay to C would move E's start to day 7 even though F and the project finish could remain on day 11. - I would approve only after the E owner accepts the handoff change, trading supplier convenience against the downstream team's committed start.

Two independent paths, A(4 days) -> C(5) and B(3) -> D(5), finish together; the deadline moves from day 9 to day 7, and crash options are A: one day at $6,000, C: two days at $4,000 per day, B: one day at $2,000, D: two days at $3,000 per day. What is your lowest-cost crashing plan?

I would crash C by two days and B by one day, reaching day 7 for a total direct cost of $10,000. - The A-C path starts at nine days and must lose two days, with C costing $8,000 versus $10,000 for one day each on A and C. - The B-D path starts at eight days and must also lose one day once the target is day 7; B is cheaper than D at $2,000 versus $3,000. - Crashing only the original critical path to seven days would still leave B-D finishing on day 8. - I would compare the $10,000 premium and any quality risk from acceleration with the value or penalty attached to the two-day gain.

A sequential design(6 days) -> build(10) -> test(4) plan takes 20 days, but the launch needs day 17; overlapping the final three design days with build has a 30% chance of five days of rework costing $40,000, while a phased handoff costs $12,000 and lowers that probability to 10%. Would you fast-track?

I would fast-track with the $12,000 phased handoff and frozen interface criteria, not with an uncontrolled three-day overlap. - The overlap creates a 17-day base plan, so it is the only stated option that meets the launch target without cutting scope. - Uncontrolled overlap has an expected 1.5 days of rework and only a 70% chance of avoiding that rework event. - The controlled option lowers expected rework to 0.5 day and raises the chance of avoiding it to 90%, although expected rework cost falls only from $12,000 to $4,000. - I would accept the extra $4,000 in expected total cost because the deadline is the constraint, while documenting that a five-day downside still exists.

A critical chain has safe estimates of 9, 12, and 15 days but working estimates of 6, 8, and 10; two feeding chains have safe/working totals of 10/7 and 12/8 days. Using half of removed safety for buffers, what dates do you commit to?

I would manage the critical chain to 24 working days and commit externally to day 30 using a six-day project buffer. - The safe critical-chain total is 36 days, the working total is 24, and half of the 12 removed days becomes the six-day project buffer. - The feeding chains lose three and four days of embedded safety, so I would place 1.5-day and two-day feeding buffers before their merge points. - I would track buffer consumption rather than allow each task to reclaim its former padding, because local safety hides delay until it is too late. - The 30-day commitment is six days faster than the padded plan but carries more exposure if the estimates are correlated, so I would validate it with schedule-risk analysis.

Hardware takes six weeks, firmware takes four weeks after hardware, integration takes three weeks, and regulatory review takes five weeks; a customer wants a $500,000 payment milestone called 'integrated system' at week 10. Do you accept that milestone?

I would keep the week-10 payment point but name it 'components accepted and ready for integration,' not 'integrated system.' - Hardware completes at week 6 and firmware at week 10, so no integration work is complete at that point. - I would set objective week-10 acceptance criteria for hardware, firmware, interface documentation, and test-environment readiness. - The true integrated-system milestone belongs at week 13, followed by regulatory approval at week 18. - Accurate milestones preserve the early cash flow without creating a contractual claim that we delivered three weeks before the schedule supports it.

A design(4 weeks) -> build(8) -> test(4) schedule must fall from 16 to 12 weeks; build can be crashed by two weeks at $30,000 per week, test by one week at $20,000, a one-week overlap has a 10% chance of two weeks of rework, and a two-week overlap has a 25% chance of three weeks of rework. Which compression mix do you choose for a hard deadline?

I would crash build by two weeks, crash test by one, and overlap design with build by one week, paying $80,000 for the lower-risk 12-week plan. - Three weeks of crashing cost $80,000 and the one-week overlap supplies the fourth week needed. - Its expected duration is 12.2 weeks because the rework exposure is 10% times two weeks. - The cheaper plan crashes build by two weeks for $60,000 and overlaps two weeks, but its expected duration is 12.75 weeks with a 25% chance of a three-week miss. - I would pay the extra $20,000 for the smaller deadline risk; if the date were flexible, the cheaper mix could be economically better.

An approved baseline finishes at week 24; a mandatory feature for a $1 million contract adds four weeks and $120,000 on a path with two weeks of total float, and the remaining two weeks can be crashed at $35,000 per week. The sponsor asks you to absorb it without a change request. What do you do?

I would reject silent absorption and take a $190,000 change request to the change board, recommending approval with two weeks of crashing to preserve week 24. - The path consumes its two weeks of float first, so the uncompressed feature moves completion from week 24 to week 26. - Recovering those two weeks costs $70,000, making the feature's total incremental budget $190,000. - Until approval, I keep the original scope, schedule, and cost baselines intact; after approval, I update all three with the feature and compressed sequence while retaining the week-24 finish. - The recommendation protects a $1 million contract, but governance must explicitly accept the extra cost and execution risk rather than hide both in the old baseline.

Three workstreams finish in parallel at week 12 for Platform, week 10 for Data, and week 9 for Compliance, then require four weeks of shared integration; the program deadline is week 15. Platform can be crashed one week for $50,000, or integration can start at week 11 with a 20% chance of three weeks of rework costing $80,000. Which option do you choose?

I would crash Platform by one week for $50,000 because the hard program deadline makes the lower-risk shared path more valuable than the cheaper expected rework option. - The current program finish is week 16 because Platform controls the merge at week 12 and integration adds four weeks. - Crashing Platform to week 11 lets all workstreams enter integration by week 11 and finishes at week 15. - Early integration has only $16,000 of expected rework cost, but it carries a 20% chance of moving completion as late as week 18. - I would also make week-11 interface acceptance a shared milestone so Data and Compliance optimize for the program handoff, not only their local finish dates.

An API team needs two weeks for schema and six for endpoints; a mobile team can build a three-week shell in parallel but then needs four weeks after the API, followed by a three-week security review, giving a week-15 finish against a week-14 deadline. You can spend $20,000 to freeze the contract at week 2 and build against mocks, with a 10% chance of two weeks of rework, or $45,000 to crash API work by two weeks. What do you choose?

I would choose the $20,000 contract-first dependency plan because it creates enough schedule margin to absorb the quantified interface risk. - Without intervention, API finishes at week 8, mobile integration at week 12, and security at week 15. - With a week-2 contract freeze, mobile builds against mocks from week 3 to week 7, validates against the live API in week 9, and security finishes at week 12. - A two-week rework event would consume the margin but still finish at week 14, while API crashing costs $25,000 more and produces only a week-13 plan. - I would require versioned schemas, contract tests, and named owners for the API-to-mobile handoff because the saving depends on controlling that cross-team interface.

Project Manager interview questions

100 real questions with model answers and explanations for Senior Project Manager candidates.

See a Project Manager resume example →

Practice with flashcards

Spaced repetition · Hunter Pass

Questions

I would fund the mandatory work, the platform enabler, and the growth project, while placing the other six projects below the funding line.

A 10% portfolio reserve is $2 million, so only $18 million should be committed; $8 million plus $4 million plus $6 million uses that amount exactly.
I would cut the six lower-ranked projects from the 12-month plan rather than spread $20 million thinly across all 9 and underfund every delivery team.
The steering committee owns the final portfolio selection and reserve release; I would submit one recommendation with the six explicit deferrals, not nine separate funding requests.
At the 90-day portfolio checkpoint, I would reopen the first deferred project only if committed spend remains within $18 million and the funded projects still meet their benefit gates.

Why interviewers ask this: The interviewer is testing whether the candidate can turn a constrained portfolio into a funded slate with arithmetic, explicit cuts, governance, and a review point.

I would protect the three portfolio-critical commitments and pause enough lower-priority work to keep demand at 32 engineers.

The protected work consumes 26 engineers, leaving 6 for the four lower-priority projects, so 8 requested positions must come out of the 12-week plan.
I would keep the highest-ranked lower-priority project at 6 engineers and pause the other three, including their discretionary vendor spend, rather than split specialists across four partial starts.
I can sequence work inside the approved $24 million envelope, but the steering committee decides any priority override or more than $500,000 of termination and restart cost.
After 4 weeks, I would check platform throughput and regulatory progress; paused work resumes only when the forecast shows at least 8 engineers available for the remaining 8 weeks.

Why interviewers ask this: A strong answer quantifies the capacity gap and resolves it through portfolio priority, clear authority, and a dated capacity review.

governance

I would hold the final three projects and release only a limited adoption recovery tranche before committing the remaining $7 million.

Realized benefit is $4.5 million divided by $9 million, or 50% of target, so the original benefits case is not strong enough for an automatic continuation.
I would authorize $2 million for the highest-impact adoption fixes and hold $5 million, cutting any feature work that does not move usage or the measured benefit baseline.
The business benefit owners are accountable for adoption, while the steering committee owns the decision to release the held $5 million or stop the remaining projects.
At an 8-week checkpoint, continuation requires at least $6.75 million annualized benefit, which is 75% of target, plus a signed recovery forecast for the final 25%.

Why interviewers ask this: The interviewer is evaluating whether the candidate governs investment against measured benefits instead of treating delivery spend as proof of value.

design

I would not pass Atlas into build and would place it on a time-boxed hold while protecting the alternative investment.

Atlas now offers $8 million of benefit for $8 million of remaining cost, while the alternative offers $14 million, a $6 million benefit advantage on the same capital.
I would cut the $8 million build authorization and allow at most $400,000 for 6 weeks to validate whether Atlas can restore at least a $12 million benefit case.
Because the gate commits more than $5 million and changes portfolio allocation, the steering committee makes the go, hold, or stop decision; the project sponsor supplies the revised case.
At the 6-week checkpoint, Atlas is stopped unless evidence supports at least $12 million benefit and no more than $8 million remaining build cost.

Why interviewers ask this: A strong answer treats the stage gate as a real capital allocation decision and compares forward value rather than defending sunk cost.

estimationgovernanceportfolio

I would recommend cancelling Cedar and removing the $1 million of optional scope to close the full $4 million forecast gap.

The portfolio is $46 million minus $42 million, or $4 million over; Cedar releases $3 million and the two scope cuts release the remaining $1 million.
I would stop Cedar at its current boundary, preserve reusable deliverables, and cut only the named optional scope rather than apply an indiscriminate percentage reduction across all 10 projects.
The steering committee owns project cancellation and cross-project baseline changes; each project manager owns execution after the committee records the decision and effective date.
The next monthly checkpoint must show an estimate at completion of no more than $42 million and no change to the month-15 portfolio milestone.

Why interviewers ask this: The interviewer is checking whether the candidate can convert a portfolio overrun into a complete, decision-ready recommendation with accountable follow-through.

program-managementestimation

The steering committee must decide, and I would recommend conditional approval funded by an explicit scope trade rather than an unplanned budget increase.

The nominal incremental benefit is $2 million minus $900,000, or $1.1 million, but both the cost and 6-week delay exceed delegated authority.
I would cut $500,000 of lower-value scope in that workstream and request only $400,000 from portfolio contingency, keeping total program funding at $36 million.
The project manager owns the impact analysis, I own the recommendation, and the steering committee owns the schedule exception and contingency release; none of us should split the change to bypass thresholds.
Approval would include a 4-week proof checkpoint, and the remaining spend is released only if the benefit forecast stays at or above $2 million and the integrated deadline impact remains 6 weeks or less.

Why interviewers ask this: A strong answer applies decision thresholds correctly while preserving value through a quantified trade and a conditional checkpoint.

estimationaggregation

I would report the portfolio red and ask for immediate cost and capacity decisions rather than repeat the nine green project statuses.

The forecast is $6 million, or 10%, over budget, and 150% demand for 4 architects means teams want 6, leaving a gap of 2 architects for 3 months.
I would recommend stopping the two lowest-value projects if they release at least $4 million and 2 architects, then cut or defer another $2 million of noncritical scope to restore the $60 million ceiling.
The board confirms any strategic benefit reset, while the steering committee owns project stops and resource reallocation; project managers cannot keep projects green by hiding portfolio-level contention.
The board pack would include a 30-day checkpoint requiring a $60 million or lower forecast, named owners for the 20% benefit recovery, and architect demand no higher than 4.

Why interviewers ask this: The interviewer is testing whether the candidate can expose aggregate portfolio health and turn reporting into specific governance decisions.

decision-makingconcurrency

I would hold the $6 million wave-two rollout and fund a bounded adoption recovery before expanding.

Adoption is 30 percentage points below the gate, and realized annualized savings are $1.2 million divided by $3 million, or 40% of target.
I would release $1 million for training, workflow fixes, and local champions, while holding $5 million and cutting new features unrelated to adoption.
The COO as benefit owner is accountable for usage and savings, and the steering committee owns the wave-two gate and release of the held budget.
At a 6-week checkpoint, wave two proceeds only if adoption reaches at least 60% and annualized savings reach $2.1 million, or 70% of the original target.

Why interviewers ask this: A strong answer links rollout funding to adoption and benefits, with a named business owner and measurable gate.

procurement

I would approve the $1.5 million recovery and pause blocked discretionary work until the shared platform clears its gate.

Four recovered weeks avoid $600,000 times 4, or $2.4 million of blocked-team burn, producing a net $900,000 saving before any schedule benefit.
I would cut $1.5 million of lower-value scope elsewhere in the $48 million program so acceleration does not create a budget overrun, and stop the three teams from burning against work they cannot complete.
The steering committee owns the vendor commitment and cross-project scope trade because the decision exceeds $1 million; the platform owner remains accountable for delivery.
I would run weekly recovery checkpoints and release dependent teams only after a 4-week integration gate proves the platform interfaces work end to end.

Why interviewers ask this: The interviewer is evaluating whether the candidate can quantify a dependency decision and govern cost, authority, and reintegration across projects.

I would cancel Projects X and Y and protect Project Z, removing exactly the funding gap created by the new ceiling.

The current total forecast is $14 million plus $41 million, or $55 million, so the portfolio must remove $5.5 million to reach $49.5 million.
Cancelling X and Y releases $3 million plus $2.5 million, exactly $5.5 million, while preserving Z's stronger $7 million benefit for $2 million remaining cost.
The steering committee owns both cancellations and the revised portfolio baseline; benefit owners must sign the resulting $3.5 million reduction in forecast benefits from X and Y.
At the 60-day checkpoint, I would confirm closure costs, a forecast no higher than $49.5 million, and that Z has passed its next benefit and dependency gate.

Why interviewers ask this: A strong answer shows disciplined portfolio rebalancing by matching the required cut exactly while preserving the best forward return.

scheduling

I would crash B by one day for $5,000 because A-B-D-F is the 13-day critical path, while A-C-E-F takes 12 days.

Crashing C is cheaper but leaves the 13-day path unchanged, so it buys no project-level schedule reduction.
Reducing B from six to five days brings both paths to 12 days and meets the one-day target.
The new plan has two critical paths, so I would flag that any slip on either branch now moves delivery.
I would spend the $5,000 only if one day of earlier delivery is worth more than that cost and the added schedule risk.

Why interviewers ask this: The interviewer is testing whether the candidate calculates the critical path before spending money and recognizes the risk created by multiple critical paths.

I would not approve the delay as harmless because C has three days of total float but zero free float.

The paths are 11 days through B-D and eight days through C-E, so the C-E branch can slip three days without moving final completion.
C finishes on day 5 and E is scheduled to start immediately, which makes C's free float zero despite its three days of total float.
A two-day delay to C would move E's start to day 7 even though F and the project finish could remain on day 11.
I would approve only after the E owner accepts the handoff change, trading supplier convenience against the downstream team's committed start.

Why interviewers ask this: The interviewer is checking whether the candidate distinguishes total float from free float and protects a downstream commitment even when the final date is safe.

schedulingestimation

I would crash C by two days and B by one day, reaching day 7 for a total direct cost of $10,000.

The A-C path starts at nine days and must lose two days, with C costing $8,000 versus $10,000 for one day each on A and C.
The B-D path starts at eight days and must also lose one day once the target is day 7; B is cheaper than D at $2,000 versus $3,000.
Crashing only the original critical path to seven days would still leave B-D finishing on day 8.
I would compare the $10,000 premium and any quality risk from acceleration with the value or penalty attached to the two-day gain.

Why interviewers ask this: The interviewer wants to see correct crash-cost optimization across all paths that become critical, not just acceleration of the initial longest path.

probabilitydesign

I would fast-track with the $12,000 phased handoff and frozen interface criteria, not with an uncontrolled three-day overlap.

The overlap creates a 17-day base plan, so it is the only stated option that meets the launch target without cutting scope.
Uncontrolled overlap has an expected 1.5 days of rework and only a 70% chance of avoiding that rework event.
The controlled option lowers expected rework to 0.5 day and raises the chance of avoiding it to 90%, although expected rework cost falls only from $12,000 to $4,000.
I would accept the extra $4,000 in expected total cost because the deadline is the constraint, while documenting that a five-day downside still exists.

Why interviewers ask this: The interviewer is evaluating whether the candidate quantifies fast-tracking risk and pays for controls when schedule certainty matters more than minimum expected cost.

estimation

I would manage the critical chain to 24 working days and commit externally to day 30 using a six-day project buffer.

The safe critical-chain total is 36 days, the working total is 24, and half of the 12 removed days becomes the six-day project buffer.
The feeding chains lose three and four days of embedded safety, so I would place 1.5-day and two-day feeding buffers before their merge points.
I would track buffer consumption rather than allow each task to reclaim its former padding, because local safety hides delay until it is too late.
The 30-day commitment is six days faster than the padded plan but carries more exposure if the estimates are correlated, so I would validate it with schedule-risk analysis.

Why interviewers ask this: The interviewer is testing whether the candidate calculates and places buffers correctly while explaining the confidence trade-off behind a shorter commitment.

milestonessystem-design

I would keep the week-10 payment point but name it 'components accepted and ready for integration,' not 'integrated system.'

Hardware completes at week 6 and firmware at week 10, so no integration work is complete at that point.
I would set objective week-10 acceptance criteria for hardware, firmware, interface documentation, and test-environment readiness.
The true integrated-system milestone belongs at week 13, followed by regulatory approval at week 18.
Accurate milestones preserve the early cash flow without creating a contractual claim that we delivered three weeks before the schedule supports it.

Why interviewers ask this: The interviewer is checking whether the candidate uses zero-duration milestones with verifiable outcomes and resists trading schedule truth for favorable payment wording.

estimationdesign

I would crash build by two weeks, crash test by one, and overlap design with build by one week, paying $80,000 for the lower-risk 12-week plan.

Three weeks of crashing cost $80,000 and the one-week overlap supplies the fourth week needed.
Its expected duration is 12.2 weeks because the rework exposure is 10% times two weeks.
The cheaper plan crashes build by two weeks for $60,000 and overlaps two weeks, but its expected duration is 12.75 weeks with a 25% chance of a three-week miss.
I would pay the extra $20,000 for the smaller deadline risk; if the date were flexible, the cheaper mix could be economically better.

Why interviewers ask this: The interviewer wants the candidate to combine compression methods quantitatively and choose between direct cost and deadline risk rather than simply selecting the cheapest plan.

change-controlsponsor

I would reject silent absorption and take a $190,000 change request to the change board, recommending approval with two weeks of crashing to preserve week 24.

The path consumes its two weeks of float first, so the uncompressed feature moves completion from week 24 to week 26.
Recovering those two weeks costs $70,000, making the feature's total incremental budget $190,000.
Until approval, I keep the original scope, schedule, and cost baselines intact; after approval, I update all three with the feature and compressed sequence while retaining the week-24 finish.
The recommendation protects a $1 million contract, but governance must explicitly accept the extra cost and execution risk rather than hide both in the old baseline.

Why interviewers ask this: The interviewer is testing schedule impact analysis and disciplined baseline control when commercial pressure encourages an unrecorded scope change.

program-managementestimation

I would crash Platform by one week for $50,000 because the hard program deadline makes the lower-risk shared path more valuable than the cheaper expected rework option.

The current program finish is week 16 because Platform controls the merge at week 12 and integration adds four weeks.
Crashing Platform to week 11 lets all workstreams enter integration by week 11 and finishes at week 15.
Early integration has only $16,000 of expected rework cost, but it carries a 20% chance of moving completion as late as week 18.
I would also make week-11 interface acceptance a shared milestone so Data and Compliance optimize for the program handoff, not only their local finish dates.

Why interviewers ask this: The interviewer is checking whether the candidate manages a shared program critical path and chooses schedule certainty over a lower expected cost when the common deadline is hard.

endpointsschemamocking

I would choose the $20,000 contract-first dependency plan because it creates enough schedule margin to absorb the quantified interface risk.

Without intervention, API finishes at week 8, mobile integration at week 12, and security at week 15.
With a week-2 contract freeze, mobile builds against mocks from week 3 to week 7, validates against the live API in week 9, and security finishes at week 12.
A two-week rework event would consume the margin but still finish at week 14, while API crashing costs $25,000 more and produces only a week-13 plan.
I would require versioned schemas, contract tests, and named owners for the API-to-mobile handoff because the saving depends on controlling that cross-team interface.

Why interviewers ask this: The interviewer is evaluating whether the candidate models a cross-team dependency, prices the alternatives, and uses interface controls to trade cost against schedule risk.

Locked questions

21
At a control point, a project has BAC of $1.2 million, PV of $600,000, EV of $480,000, and AC of $540,000; what do the EVM numbers tell you?
22
A project has BAC of $1.2 million, EV of $480,000, and AC of $600,000; if current cost efficiency will continue, what are EAC, ETC, and VAC?
23
A $2 million project has EV of $800,000 and AC of $900,000, but the entire $100,000 variance came from a one-time procurement charge that will not recur; how would you forecast completion?
dispersionprocurement
24
A schedule-driven project has BAC of $2.4 million, PV of $1.2 million, EV of $960,000, and AC of $1.2 million; what forecast would you use if both cost and schedule inefficiency will affect the remaining work?
25
A program has a $5 million cost baseline containing $400,000 of contingency reserve, plus $300,000 of management reserve; how should a $120,000 known risk and a later approved $180,000 unforeseen event affect the numbers?
riskbudget
26
A supplier failure has a 30% probability and would cost $400,000; a $45,000 mitigation lowers the probability to 10% without changing impact, so should you fund it?
probability
27
You have a $50,000 mitigation budget and three risks: A is 50% x $200,000, B is 20% x $600,000, and C is 80% x $50,000; which mitigation would you choose if A costs $30,000 and reduces probability to 20%, B costs $50,000 and reduces it to 5%, and C costs $20,000 and reduces it to 30%?
probability
28
A 10,000-run schedule Monte Carlo simulation gives P50 of 11.2 months, P80 of 13.0 months, and P90 of 14.4 months against a deterministic 10-month plan; what date would you commit to if leadership accepts at most a 20% chance of missing it?
29
Monthly CPI has moved from 0.98 to 0.94 to 0.90 and SPI from 1.01 to 0.96 to 0.90; current BAC is $1.8 million, PV is $900,000, EV is $810,000, and AC is $900,000, so what early warning should fire?
evm
30
A vendor says a $500,000 work package is 60% complete, but only accepted weighted milestones worth $250,000 are finished; PV is $350,000 and AC is $300,000, so how would you assess and forecast it?
milestonesprocurement
31
A program has a fixed $1.2M budget, has spent $720K, and needs $410K to finish mandatory scope; the sponsor requests another $140K feature. What do you decide?
sponsor
32
At month 6 of a 12-month, $2.4M program, actual spend is $1.05M, open purchase orders are $600K, remaining internal labor is forecast at $650K, and a $180K vendor change has a 70% approval probability; Finance reports only actuals. What forecast do you publish?
probabilityprocurement
33
A platform has a $600K CapEx envelope and a $300K OpEx cap: direct development is $540K, discovery is $90K, training is $60K, and cloud service costs either $210K for 10,000 transactions per second or $150K for 6,000; forecast peak load is 3,600. What do you fund?
transactions
34
A nine-month delivery needs ten full-time people; six internal staff cost $150K each per year fully loaded, four vendor specialists cost $190 per hour for 160 hours per month, the budget is $1.85M, and hiring replacements would take five months. Which staffing mix do you choose?
procurement
35
Two database specialists provide 80 hours per week; week 5 demands 120 hours, week 6 demands 40, and a 40-hour noncritical task due in week 7 has two weeks of float. Do you use resource smoothing or leveling?
resourcingschedulingdatabase
36
Four cybersecurity specialists in a matrix organization each have 32 project hours per week, but none report to you; regulatory project A needs 64 hours, while projects B and C request 44 each and need at least 32 each to keep their test windows. How do you allocate the pool?
37
A migration needs 600 specialist hours in 12 weeks; two internal analysts can each contribute 20 hours per week but need three weeks of $15K training, then work at 60% productivity for three weeks and 90% for six, while a vendor charges $180 per hour. How do you close the skill gap?
procurementmigrations
38
Four new engineers must produce 1,200 hours in eight weeks; each can deliver 25%, 50%, and 75% of a 40-hour week during the first three weeks and 85% thereafter, while experienced contractors can supply 20 hours per week at $175 per hour. What ramp-up plan do you commit to?
39
A 12-person team has 1,920 gross hours in a four-week increment, with 288 hours reserved for operations and 192 for leave and training, but project requests total 1,680 hours. What utilization level do you commit to?
40
A portfolio forecast shows demand of 26 FTE in Q3, 34 in Q4, and 29 in Q1; supply is 30 FTE, two departures are expected before Q4, and three hires arriving in Q1 will be 70% productive. Vendor lead time is eight weeks at $165 per hour. What capacity action do you take?
procurementcapacity
41
You are delivering a connected medical device with three hardware teams and three software teams over 14 months for €8 million; mechanical requirements change below 2% per month, firmware requirements change about 12% per month, certification tests are fixed for 15 March and 30 June, and two suppliers are on fixed-price contracts. Which delivery model, cadence, artefacts, and contract treatment would you choose?
testing
42
A bank must replace a payments platform with eight teams in 18 months for $15 million; regulatory requirements change about 3% per month, architecture approval is due 1 October, operational readiness is due 1 April, launch is fixed for 30 June, and the systems integrator has a milestone-based contract. Which model, cadence, artefacts, and contract handling would you put in place?
system-designhealth-checksmilestones
43
Twelve product teams across four countries must deliver a new insurance platform by 20 December with a $20 million budget; priorities change about 8% per month, six teams share the same policy and billing services, and three vendors work under separate annual contracts. Would you use SAFe or another model, and what PI cadence, artefacts, integrated milestones, and contract changes would you define?
milestonesprocurement
44
A client has signed a fixed-scope, fixed-deadline contract for five teams to deliver 240 accepted features by 30 September for $4.2 million, but change requests are arriving at 10% of scope per month and the contract includes liquidated damages of $25,000 per late day. How would you structure the model, cadence, artefacts, acceptance, and commercial change process?
change-controlconcurrencyestimation
45
Seven teams are halfway through a 12-month, $9 million CRM replacement planned in waterfall; production is due 1 February, requirements now change 15% per month, testing has found feedback too late, and the implementation partner is paid against design, build, and test milestones. How would you transition delivery, set cadence and artefacts, and amend the contract without destabilizing the date?
milestonesmethodologydesign
46
Three mature software teams and one operations team have six months and $1.5 million to improve an internal analytics service by 31 January; incoming priorities change about 5% per month, releases can happen weekly, meetings already consume 18% of team capacity, and a specialist vendor works on capped time and materials. Which agile model, ceremonies, artefacts, and contract controls would you tailor?
procurementagilecapacity
47
Nine agile teams must launch a travel marketplace in 11 months by 15 May with a $12 million budget; backlog change averages 9% per month, identity, payments, and search create 27 cross-team dependencies, and two vendors have fixed-price component contracts. What model, cadence, dependency artefacts, integrated milestones, and contract handling would you use?
milestonesprocurementagile
48
Four internal teams and two suppliers must deliver a public-sector data platform in ten months for £6.5 million by 31 March; policy interpretations change about 18% per month, procurement fixes three approval dates, and supplier statements of work specify broad outcomes but not detailed features. Which delivery model, cadence, artefacts, gates, and contract mechanism would you select?
procurement
49
Five teams must relocate a data center and install standardized network hardware in ten months for $6 million before the lease ends on 30 November; approved technical requirements change below 1% per month, equipment lead time is 22 weeks, shutdown windows are fixed, and installers are on fixed-price contracts. Would you choose waterfall, agile, or hybrid, and what cadence, artefacts, milestones, and contract controls would you apply?
milestonesmethodologyagile
50
Ten teams must deliver a retail omnichannel program for $18 million, with store hardware ready by 1 August and customer software live by 15 October; requirements change about 7% per month, software depends on hardware, payments, and a SaaS vendor, and contracts mix fixed-price equipment with capped time and materials services. What delivery model, cadence, artefacts, integrated milestones, and contract approach would you establish?
milestonesprocurementcloud
51
A 12-person release is 3 weeks behind with SPI at 0.82 against a 0.90 intervention threshold, and the fixed launch is 8 weeks away; 24 optional backlog items represent 30% of the remaining effort. What do you do in the next 24 hours and over the following week?
backlogevm
52
A sole-source hardware supplier enters insolvency 10 weeks before launch after receiving a $1.2 million prepayment; 60 devices are still undelivered, a replacement supplier needs 14 weeks, and a temporary rental fleet can arrive in 6 weeks for $450,000 against $600,000 contingency. What do you decide within 48 hours?
53
A systems integrator has missed a $1.2 million acceptance milestone by 4 weeks, three internal teams are burning $180,000 per week while blocked, and liquidated damages of $20,000 per day start in 12 days. What do you do in the next 24 hours and the next 7 days?
milestonessystem-design
54
Six weeks before launch, a shared identity dependency slips by 10 business days and blocks 3 product teams representing 90 person-days of burn per week; only 2 of 5 consuming journeys are required for the contractual launch. How do you respond within 24 hours?
dependencies
55
A contractual launch is 10 days away with damages of $75,000 per late day capped at $750,000; 18 defects remain, including 3 severity-1 defects, and the team can safely deliver 70% of scope on time or all scope 6 days late. What do you recommend?
severity-prioritydefects
56
A 30-person program is 4 weeks behind with 16 weeks remaining, and EAC has risen from BAC of $8.5 million to $9.8 million; adding 6 contractors for $480,000 would recover only 1 week, while an optional workstream costs $1.4 million and occupies the same specialists. What do you do this week?
program-management
57
A certification lab rejects 12 of 40 evidence packs 9 days before the booked test slot; missing the slot delays testing by 8 weeks, while a three-country pilot has all 6 quality specialists needed for remediation assigned across two of its countries. What do you do in the next 24 hours?
testing
58
A testing vendor confirms 72 hours before a customer-data migration that an engineer uploaded 50,000 unmasked records to its shared environment; the breach-notification assessment is due in 12 hours, and 4 teams are using that environment. What do you do first?
procurementmigrationstesting
59
Ten business days before release, 31 of 46 contracted features are accepted and current throughput is 6 acceptances per week; 9 of the remaining features are contract-critical and 6 are optional enhancements. How do you recover the commitment?
throughput
60
A steering committee meets in 24 hours: the program is 6 weeks behind with SPI at 0.76, EAC is $13.4 million against BAC of $12 million, a vendor milestone is 3 weeks late under a recovery-at-vendor-cost clause, and $40,000 per day damages start in 21 days; cutting an optional module saves $1.4 million and 4 weeks, while vendor acceleration costs $300,000 and recovers 2 weeks. What do you recommend?
milestonesevmprocurement
61
Nine days before go-live, Legal identifies a mandatory regulatory change that costs $180,000 and adds 2 weeks; enforcement begins in 30 days, the normal change board meets in 3 weeks, and the sponsor is unreachable for 48 hours. What do you do in the next 4 hours?
sponsor
62
On a $4.8 million program due 15 December, the CFO and COO each demand the same 3 data engineers from a 14-person team for the next 4 weeks; the CFO's work must finish by 15 November to avoid a $600,000 penalty, while prioritizing it delays the COO's launch by 3 weeks and costs $180,000 in revenue. A decision is needed in 24 hours. How do you resolve it?
prioritization
63
A $6 million implementation with an 18-person team must launch by 31 August, but a disengaged sponsor has not selected a $420,000 vendor; the award is due 8 May, missing it moves launch to 14 September and adds $90,000, and only 72 hours remain. What do you do?
procurementsponsor
64
Ten days before a public launch, Marketing has committed to 500,000 users on day one while Operations will support only 100,000 until two load rehearsals pass; each executive claims veto authority, and the campaign costs $1.8 million. How do you resolve the conflict within 24 hours?
65
A customer refuses acceptance 5 days before a $900,000 final payment because 18 low-severity defects remain; the contract permits acceptance when no severity-one or severity-two defects are open, but the account director wants to declare acceptance unilaterally to protect quarter-end revenue. What do you do within 24 hours?
severity-prioritydefects
66
On a $5.5 million program due 31 October, the sponsor demands a $650,000 feature that adds 5 weeks for a 20-person team and says they will escalate your refusal to the CEO in 24 hours; the feature could protect $900,000 of annual revenue. How do you handle the escalation?
escalationsoft-skillssponsor
67
A sponsor bypasses you and tells 7 members of a 16-person team to start an extra workflow on a $1.9 million project due 20 August; 2 days of work have already been spent, continuing would add $180,000 and delay launch by 2 weeks, and the team needs a ruling by tomorrow. What do you do?
sponsor
68
A $12 million regulated rollout with a 35-person team is committed for 31 January, but a new control defect raises the probability of a compliance failure from 20% to 65%; the sponsor wants to launch anyway to avoid a $700,000 delay cost, the compliance officer can veto release, and a decision is required in 72 hours. What do you recommend?
probabilitydefectssponsor
69
For a $7.4 million system replacement due 30 November, the sponsor verbally accepts a customer's request for 12 additional reports, but the 22-person team estimates $360,000 and 4 extra weeks; the customer insists the promise is binding and a contract position is needed in 5 business days. What do you do?
sponsorsystem-designpromises
70
After the steering committee removed 2 features to protect a 1 March launch, the sponsor publicly promises both features anyway on a $10 million program with a 30-person team; reinstating them adds $1.2 million and 6 weeks, and the board needs a corrected position within 48 hours. What do you do?
governancesponsorpromises
71
Ten days before a workforce-scheduling rollout across 4 sites, a union representing 30% of employees threatens a stoppage because role changes bypassed the contract's 15-day consultation; delaying all sites costs $700,000, but only 2 sites use the affected roles. What decision do you make within 48 hours?
unionjobs
72
Seventy-two hours before a payroll system goes live for 18,000 employees, 5 of 27 critical scenarios are failing, disaster recovery has not been rehearsed, and only 40% of help-desk staff have passed training; delaying costs $180,000 per week. What go-live decision do you take by tonight?
system-design
73
Six weeks after a procurement platform launch for 350 buyers, 45% of purchases still bypass it, annualized savings are $0.8 million against a $3 million target, and 4 regional directors refuse the new workflow while citing 2 regional legal constraints; the benefits review is in 21 days. What intervention do you lead this week?
procurement
74
Thirty-six hours before a board review of 14 projects worth $80 million, ransomware disables the PMO planning system; the clean backup is 9 days old, 120 approved changes are missing from it, and executives still expect current forecasts. What do you present and how do you recover control?
system-designbackups
75
An audit of a $40 million program finds 18 of 60 sampled decisions without approval evidence, 9 accepted risks without owners, and 3 vendor changes worth $1.2 million that bypassed authority limits; a $6 million funding tranche is due in 2 weeks. What do you decide within 3 business days?
procurement
76
The last customer migration caused a 14-hour outage and $600,000 in credits, and its approved lesson required two full rehearsals plus a rollback under 2 hours; the next 20,000-account wave is in 12 days, no full rehearsal has occurred, and the current rollback estimate is 9 hours. What decision do you take today?
estimationmigrationsrollback
77
Six weeks before a portfolio launch, only 4 of 11 delivery teams use the PMO readiness and change standards, the other 7 say the templates cost 6 hours per week, and the executive pack due in 10 days contains three different definitions of red status. What crisis response do you implement this week?
health-checks
78
A CRM change wave has reached 100 of 400 branches, and after 4 days transaction volume is down 22%, error rate is 14% against a 3% limit, and support has 4,800 open cases; the next 150 branches deploy in 5 days, while rollback costs $300,000 and takes 36 hours. What do you decide in the next 6 hours?
deploymentrollbacktransactions
79
A clinical scheduling system is live in 2 of 8 hospitals, but after 2 weeks 38% of appointments are still recorded on paper, booking time has risen from 7 to 12 minutes, and 17 patient-safety near misses are linked to split records; the remaining hospitals launch in 3 weeks. What decision do you take by tomorrow?
system-designjobs
80
Five days before a benefits committee, a $4 million savings claim is challenged by Finance: $1.6 million is counted in two workstreams and $900,000 of recurring operating cost is excluded; executive bonuses use the reported result. What do you present and what do you stop?
program-management
81
A junior PM has kept a workstream green for 3 weekly reports even though the forecast slipped 18 days and two milestones were already missed; the steering review is in 48 hours. How do you coach them and correct the status?
milestonesprogram-management
82
A PM has twice waited until a dependency was overdue before escalating it, causing 4 days of idle time in April and 7 days in June; the next supplier handoff is due in 3 weeks. What mentoring intervention do you make?
escalationmentoringdependencies
83
A technically strong PM has had 3 stakeholder complaints in 6 weeks for dismissing questions as uninformed, and two business leads now skip the weekly design review; a gate decision is due in 4 weeks. How do you coach them?
stakeholder-managementdesigncommunication
84
A PM has missed 5 of 8 reporting deadlines, left 12 RAID items without owners, and received two sponsor complaints in the last quarter; their manager asks you to design a 60-day improvement plan. What do you put in it?
sponsordesignestimation
85
A team split between Toronto and Warsaw has missed the same end-of-day handoff 3 times in 2 weeks, adding 36 hours to defect resolution each time; release testing starts in 10 days. How do you resolve the conflict and coach the two workstream PMs?
defectsprogram-management
86
In a matrix program, a PM and an engineering manager have each told 14 engineers that the other owns delivery decisions, leaving 9 actions overdue for more than 5 business days; the next integration milestone is in 3 weeks. How do you restore accountability?
milestones
87
A PM seeking promotion has delivered 4 projects on time but needed you to lead 5 of the last 6 executive escalations and has mentored no junior PMs; the promotion panel meets in 90 days. How do you assess and develop their readiness?
escalationmentoringhealth-checks
88
A resource manager has pulled 3 of your 10 engineers with 5 business days' notice for the second time this quarter, putting a milestone due in 6 weeks at risk; the engineers do not report to you. How do you handle the conflict and coach the assigned PM?
milestonessoft-skills
89
A PMO analyst finds that one PM's last 3 monthly forecasts understated estimate at completion by 8%, 11%, and 14%, and the next board pack closes in 12 business days. How do you coach the PM and protect the forecast?
estimation
90
Two experienced PMs have disputed ownership of a shared QA lead in 4 planning meetings, sent conflicting priorities twice, and delayed test preparation by 6 business days; system testing begins in 15 days. What do you do?
ownershipsystem-designtesting
91
A $10 million customer platform is 6 weeks late, has spent $8.4 million with 35% of accepted scope still open, and has an 8.7% defect escape rate against a 2% limit; the contractual launch is in 30 days. Do you keep the date, cut scope, or rebaseline at tomorrow's executive review?
defects
92
You take over a 22-person ERP rollout with go-live in 21 days, only 58% of user acceptance tests passed, 47 blocking defects, and a vendor still reporting green; the CEO wants a keep-or-pause recommendation in 48 hours. What do you do first?
defectsuatacceptance
93
A 14-month modernization has spent $9 million of an $11 million budget, now needs another $5 million and 7 months, and its forecast annual benefit has fallen from $8 million to $2.5 million; company policy requires recovery investments to pay back within 18 months after launch, and a legacy license renewal is due in 10 days. Do you recover or cancel?
recovery
94
Your team has missed 3 customer milestones in 4 months, kept the project green until 9 days before the latest miss, and put a $6 million renewal at risk; the customer gives you 30 days to restore confidence. Do you defend the current baseline or reopen it at tomorrow's meeting?
milestones
95
Seventy-two hours before a steering committee, your launch forecast moves from 30 September to 15 December, the cost forecast rises by $3.2 million, and the sponsor asks you to keep the status amber and request only $1 million now. What do you present?
governancesponsor
96
A payments release is due in 48 hours, but end-to-end tests pass at 96.8% against a 99.5% gate, 2 severity-one defects remain open, and rollback has not completed a full rehearsal; a $2 million campaign starts on launch day. Is this go or no-go?
e2eseverity-prioritydefects
97
The COO demands a 1 November launch to protect $4 million in seasonal revenue, while the CISO refuses approval because 14 critical controls are incomplete; delaying triggers a $900,000 vendor charge, and the CEO wants a decision in 24 hours. How do you resolve the conflict?
procurement
98
A launch plan assumed a vendor API could sustain 5,000 transactions per second, but a test 5 weeks before go-live reaches only 2,100 against a forecast peak of 4,200; an alternate integration costs $600,000 and needs 8 weeks. What decision do you make within 48 hours?
procurementapitransactions
99
On Monday you inherit a project reported 90% complete and green, but accepted deliverables are only 62%, $1.4 million of supplier commitments are absent from the forecast, and launch is in 6 weeks; the sponsor asks you to preserve green until next month's review. What do you report to the board this Friday?
deliverablesownershipsponsor
100
A red-project recovery promised to reduce 42 blocking defects to 10 in 30 days, cap weekly spend at $300,000, and preserve a launch originally 8 weeks away; at day 30, with 4 weeks left, there are still 37 blockers, spend is $450,000 per week, and another delay costs the customer $5 million. What do you recommend at the emergency board in 48 hours?
communicationpromisesdefects

Questions

9A 9-project, 16-month program has a $48 million budget; its shared data-platform project is 5 weeks late, three dependent teams are burning $600,000 per week while blocked, and a vendor can recover 4 weeks for $1.5 million if approved within 7 days. What cross-program decision do you recommend?

11A schedule has Start -> A(4 days), then A -> B(6) -> D(2) and A -> C(3) -> E(4), with D and E both feeding F(1); you must shorten delivery by one day, and crashing B costs $5,000 per day while crashing C costs $2,000 per day. Which task do you crash?

12In a network Start -> A(3 days), then A -> B(4) -> D(3) and A -> C(2) -> E(2), with D and E feeding F(1), a supplier asks to delay C by two days while E is committed to start on day 5; do you approve?

13Two independent paths, A(4 days) -> C(5) and B(3) -> D(5), finish together; the deadline moves from day 9 to day 7, and crash options are A: one day at $6,000, C: two days at $4,000 per day, B: one day at $2,000, D: two days at $3,000 per day. What is your lowest-cost crashing plan?

15A critical chain has safe estimates of 9, 12, and 15 days but working estimates of 6, 8, and 10; two feeding chains have safe/working totals of 10/7 and 12/8 days. Using half of removed safety for buffers, what dates do you commit to?

16Hardware takes six weeks, firmware takes four weeks after hardware, integration takes three weeks, and regulatory review takes five weeks; a customer wants a $500,000 payment milestone called 'integrated system' at week 10. Do you accept that milestone?

18An approved baseline finishes at week 24; a mandatory feature for a $1 million contract adds four weeks and $120,000 on a path with two weeks of total float, and the remaining two weeks can be crashed at $35,000 per week. The sponsor asks you to absorb it without a change request. What do you do?

Locked questions