• Home
• PMI Exams
• PgMP - Program Management Professional

PgMP PMI Practice Test Questions and Exam Dumps

Question 1:

You are overseeing a program that includes 121 stakeholders. Your communications management plan outlines the methods, content, and channels of communication. In addition to this plan, which of the following elements is also required as an input for the process of distributing information within your program?

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

Answer: C

Explanation:

In the context of program management, especially when dealing with a large and diverse group of stakeholders—such as the 121 in this scenario—communication plays a pivotal role in ensuring alignment, managing expectations, and maintaining engagement. The communications management plan certainly lays the foundation by specifying how information will be communicated, what content will be shared, and through which modalities (e.g., emails, reports, meetings). However, in order to effectively carry out the actual distribution of this information, another crucial input is needed: the stakeholder analysis plan.

The stakeholder analysis plan is a document that categorizes and details the stakeholders involved in the program. It typically includes their interests, influence levels, expectations, communication preferences, and other key characteristics. Having this information is critical when determining not just what to communicate, but also how to tailor the communication to suit the needs and expectations of each stakeholder or group.

For example, senior executives may require concise, high-level summaries of progress and risks, while functional managers might prefer more detailed performance data and technical updates. Without a stakeholder analysis plan, the program team risks miscommunicating—either by sharing irrelevant details, omitting important information, or using the wrong communication channels.

Let's examine why the other options are not the correct answer in this context:

A. Change requests are part of the program's integrated change control process. They are not used as a foundational input for information distribution. Instead, they are outputs of other processes and are typically communicated after being processed.

B. Earned value management results are performance metrics that may be communicated to stakeholders, but they are not an input into the process of distributing information. Rather, they are part of the content that might be shared as a result of that distribution.

D. Performance reports are outputs generated from monitoring and controlling processes. They may serve as deliverables of communication activities, but they are not inputs into the planning or structuring of information distribution.

Therefore, when determining what additional input is essential to properly execute your communications strategy—beyond the communications management plan itself—the stakeholder analysis plan is key. It ensures that your communication efforts are appropriately targeted and effectively delivered, based on a nuanced understanding of each stakeholder's role, influence, and expectations within the program. This tailored approach increases the likelihood of stakeholder satisfaction, fosters transparency, and contributes to overall program success.

Question 2:

What is the formula to determine earned value (EV) for a program?

A. Percent complete times percent remaining in the program
B. Percent complete times the program cost estimate
C. Percent complete times the program budget at completion
D. Percent complete times the program cost of labor and materials

Answer: C – Percent complete times the program budget at completion

Explanation:

Earned Value (EV) is a key concept in project management used to assess the performance of a project or program in terms of cost and schedule. It represents the value of the work actually performed to date, expressed in terms of the budgeted cost of that work. The Earned Value is calculated using the formula:

EV = Percent Complete × Budget at Completion (BAC)

This formula provides a way to compare the planned progress (based on the budget) with the actual progress (based on work completed). It helps project managers understand how much value has been earned compared to what was originally planned.

Let’s break down the options to understand why C is correct:

• A. Percent complete times percent remaining in the program – This is incorrect. The percent remaining in the program is not used to calculate earned value. Earned value is determined by the percent complete of the work and the budgeted cost for that work, not by the percentage of remaining work.

• B. Percent complete times the program cost estimate – This is incorrect. While this formula might seem reasonable at first glance, earned value is specifically linked to the budget at completion (BAC), not a vague “cost estimate.” The cost estimate could change during the project, whereas the BAC is the fixed value set at the beginning of the program.

• C. Percent complete times the program budget at completion – This is correct. The formula for earned value is the percent complete multiplied by the budget at completion (BAC). The BAC is the total planned cost of the program or project. This gives you the value of the work that has been completed, allowing for the assessment of project performance.

• D. Percent complete times the program cost of labor and materials – This is incorrect. This option refers to specific components of a project (labor and materials) and is not the correct formula for earned value. The formula for earned value is based on the overall budget at completion (BAC), which includes all aspects of the project, not just labor and materials.

The key to understanding earned value is recognizing that it measures the work performed (in terms of the budget) and helps determine whether a project is ahead of or behind schedule, or whether it is over or under budget. By comparing earned value (EV) to the planned value (PV) and actual cost (AC), project managers can determine important performance metrics, such as:

• Cost Performance Index (CPI) = EV / AC

• Schedule Performance Index (SPI) = EV / PV

In summary, the formula to calculate earned value (EV) is:

EV = Percent Complete × Budget at Completion (BAC)

Therefore, the correct answer is C – Percent complete times the program budget at completion.

Question 3:

Olive, a program manager, has issued a request for proposal (RFP) for a significant segment of her program's work. She has established several prerequisites for vendors to be eligible. A key condition is that any vendor must have at least four licensed electricians on their team. This stipulation is an example of which of the following concepts?

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

Answer: A

Explanation:

When issuing a request for proposal (RFP) as part of procurement activities, program managers like Olive typically include certain requirements to ensure that only qualified vendors are considered. In this scenario, Olive has made it a mandatory condition that all participating vendors must have at least four licensed electricians. This is not a preference or a desirable trait; it is a strict prerequisite to even be eligible for further consideration. This type of requirement fits into the concept known as a screening system.

A screening system is used to eliminate vendors or proposals that do not meet basic, non-negotiable qualifications. These are the must-have conditions that vendors must satisfy in order to proceed to the next stage of the evaluation process. If a vendor cannot meet this requirement—in this case, having four licensed electricians—they are disqualified from the procurement process regardless of any other strengths they may have. Screening systems are a way to ensure that only viable candidates, those who meet the minimum acceptable standards, are even reviewed in greater detail.

Now, let’s examine why the other options are incorrect in this context.

B. Scoring model refers to a structured approach where evaluators assign scores to different aspects of a proposal based on predefined criteria. For example, a vendor may receive a higher score for having more project experience or better pricing. However, scoring models are used after the screening process and do not serve to eliminate vendors based on minimum qualifications.

C. Vendor analysis requirements is not a standard or well-defined term in program procurement management. While vendor analysis is a legitimate process for comparing and assessing vendors, "vendor analysis requirements" is too vague and does not directly refer to mandatory qualifications like the one described in the question.

D. Evaluation criteria are used to judge and rank vendors who have passed the screening phase. These criteria might include factors like past performance, pricing, technical approach, and so on. Evaluation criteria help select the best vendor from among those who already meet all screening requirements. They do not eliminate vendors outright; they rank them based on desirable qualities.

In summary, Olive’s requirement for each vendor to have at least four licensed electricians serves as a gatekeeping mechanism. It is not a point of competitive differentiation but rather a baseline for eligibility. This makes it a textbook example of a screening system. By applying this system, Olive ensures that only vendors who meet the program's essential technical and resource qualifications are allowed to proceed to more detailed evaluations.

Question 4:

You are the program manager for your organization. Management has asked you to create a document that will capture the stakeholders' concerns, perceived threats, and specific objectives about the program and its projects. What document is management asking you to create in this instance?

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

Answer: C – Business case

Explanation:

In this scenario, management is asking for a document that outlines the stakeholders' concerns, perceived threats, and specific objectives related to the program and its projects. This describes a Business Case document, which is typically created at the beginning of a program or project to justify its initiation.

A Business Case provides a detailed rationale for the project or program, including the following key elements:

• Objectives: What the project or program is trying to achieve, including specific goals or desired outcomes.

• Stakeholder concerns: The interests, concerns, and needs of stakeholders involved or impacted by the program.

• Perceived threats: Potential risks, issues, and challenges that could hinder the success of the program.

• Benefits and costs: An analysis of the expected benefits and costs, including any trade-offs or resource requirements.

• Risk assessment: A discussion of any threats or risks to the project, as well as mitigation strategies.

The Business Case is critical for ensuring that all stakeholders are aligned on the objectives and potential challenges before the program moves forward. It helps in making informed decisions about the program's feasibility, funding, and priority.

Let’s break down the other options to see why they are not the correct answer:

• A. Requirements document – While the requirements document does capture the specific needs and expectations for a program or project, it is more focused on detailed requirements for what the project must deliver (functional, technical, and non-functional requirements). It does not typically address stakeholder concerns, perceived threats, or overarching objectives like the Business Case does.

• B. Project charter – The Project Charter is a document that officially authorizes a project and provides high-level information such as objectives, stakeholders, scope, and initial resources. While it does address project goals and stakeholders, it is more about establishing the project’s authority and defining its scope at a high level. It doesn’t usually capture the detailed analysis of concerns, threats, or specific objectives in the way a Business Case does.

• D. Scope statement – The Scope Statement defines the boundaries of the project, specifying what is included and what is excluded in the project’s deliverables. While it is important for defining the work and setting clear boundaries, it does not typically address the broader stakeholder concerns, perceived threats, or strategic objectives, which are part of the Business Case.

In conclusion, the document that best captures stakeholders' concerns, perceived threats, and specific objectives about the program is the Business Case. It serves as a comprehensive justification for the program and ensures that all stakeholders have a shared understanding of its purpose, risks, and expected benefits.

Therefore, the correct answer is C – Business case.

Question 5:

You are managing the NHQ Program and collaborating with your team to ensure all program work is completed accurately and aligns with the defined scope. You are also examining the inspection procedures the team will follow to confirm that the work meets these scope requirements. Any identified defects must be addressed before the program’s customers perform their own inspections. What process are you carrying out to confirm the work conforms to scope?

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

Answer: A

Explanation:

The scenario describes a process in which the program manager and their team are inspecting completed work to ensure it meets the established scope requirements and is free of defects. If any issues are found, corrective action must be taken before the work is presented to the customer. This is a classic representation of quality control.

Quality control is the process responsible for monitoring and recording results from quality activities to assess performance and recommend necessary changes. It involves inspection, testing, and reviewing deliverables to ensure they meet the required specifications. In this case, the inspection process and the act of identifying and correcting defects before the deliverables are passed to the customer align precisely with the quality control process.

Quality control typically occurs after work has been performed but before it is handed over to the customer. It focuses on identifying defects in the finished product and ensuring that outputs meet predefined quality standards. This process is proactive in catching errors early so they can be resolved without affecting customer satisfaction or the integrity of the deliverable.

Now let’s look at the incorrect options:

B. Scope verification (often referred to as validate scope) involves the formal acceptance of the completed deliverables by the customer or sponsor. This occurs after internal checks have been completed. It is not concerned with detecting and correcting defects; rather, it is a formal review confirming that all scope elements have been delivered. The key distinction is that scope verification happens after quality control, not in parallel with it.

C. Quality assurance is a broader, process-oriented approach that focuses on preventing defects by improving and validating the processes used to create deliverables. It ensures that the right procedures are in place and being followed. In contrast, quality control focuses on identifying defects in the actual outputs, not just ensuring good processes are followed.

D. Planning is a preparatory phase where scopes, schedules, resources, and procedures are defined. It’s not an active process concerned with inspecting or validating completed work.

To summarize, in the situation described, the manager is inspecting deliverables and addressing any defects prior to customer review. This hands-on, detail-oriented activity is best categorized as quality control. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the final product not only meets the internal standards but is also acceptable for formal review by the program’s customers.

Question 6:

Your company and a competing company have created a teaming agreement for an opportunity. Through this team agreement, you and your competitor can complete a major program for a client. This is, technically, a risk response for both organizations. What type of risk response are you dealing with in this instance?

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

Answer: D – Sharing

Explanation:

In project and risk management, different risk responses are used to address and mitigate potential risks in a program or project. These responses can be grouped into categories based on how the organizations choose to deal with risk, such as avoidance, mitigation, acceptance, and sharing.

In this case, the scenario involves a teaming agreement between your company and a competitor, where both organizations are collaborating to complete a major program for a client. By teaming up, both companies are sharing the risk of the program. This means that they are pooling resources, expertise, and efforts to mitigate risks collectively, rather than each organization facing the risks individually. This shared responsibility for both the rewards and the challenges is characteristic of the risk response strategy known as Sharing.

Let’s break down each option:

• A. Teaming – Although you might be entering a teaming agreement, Teaming itself is not a specific risk response. Instead, it is a collaborative strategy or business arrangement to enable organizations to combine strengths. The risk response in the context of teaming could involve sharing risks, but the term Teaming is not used as a formal risk response in risk management terminology.

• B. Exploiting – The Exploiting risk response is used when an organization identifies an opportunity and takes proactive steps to ensure that it maximizes its potential. It is about capitalizing on a positive risk (opportunity) to enhance the likelihood of a favorable outcome. This is not applicable in your case, where you and the competitor are mitigating the risks involved in completing the program.

• C. Accepting – Accepting a risk means acknowledging its existence and choosing not to take action to address it unless it becomes a problem. It involves no active mitigation or response to the risk. However, in this scenario, by entering a teaming agreement, you and your competitor are not accepting the risk but actively addressing it through collaboration and shared efforts.

• D. Sharing – Sharing is the correct risk response. In a risk-sharing strategy, two or more parties share the burden of risk, usually in a manner that distributes both the potential rewards and potential challenges. In this case, by creating a teaming agreement, your company and the competitor are sharing the risks associated with the program, such as financial risks, technical challenges, and resource limitations.

This approach allows both companies to benefit from each other's capabilities while jointly handling the risks. For example, the teaming agreement might allow each company to leverage its strengths, share resources (such as personnel, equipment, and knowledge), and reduce the overall exposure to potential risks.

In conclusion, the risk response described in the question is Sharing because both companies are entering into an agreement to collaboratively manage and share the risks associated with the program.

Therefore, the correct answer is D – Sharing.

Question 7:

A project manager working within your program estimates their project will cost $145,000. As the project nears completion, they find that $27,876 of the budget remains unspent. The project manager decides to use these remaining funds to add extra features to the project's deliverables. These enhancements are not part of the original scope, but the manager believes they will add value and that the customer will likely appreciate them. What is this scenario an example of?

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

Answer: A

Explanation:

This scenario illustrates the concept of gold plating, which refers to the practice of adding extra features or functionality to a product or deliverable that were not included in the original scope of the project. Gold plating is usually done with good intentions. In this case, the project manager is trying to maximize the perceived value of the project by adding enhancements the customer might like, especially since there is budget left over. However, this approach is problematic and generally discouraged in professional project and program management.

Gold plating introduces risks to the project even if it appears beneficial on the surface. These risks can include extended timelines, untested features, scope confusion, potential quality issues, and unapproved scope changes. Moreover, even if the additions are appreciated, they can set problematic precedents or misalign with the customer’s true needs or regulatory requirements. More importantly, gold plating violates the basic project management principle of adhering strictly to the defined scope unless changes are formally approved through a change control process.

Now, let’s explore why the other options are incorrect:

B. Errors and omissions refer to mistakes or overlooked requirements during the planning or execution phases. This term applies when something that should have been included in the project scope or design is unintentionally left out. In contrast, the current situation involves intentionally adding features, not correcting missing or mistaken ones.

C. Expert judgment by the project manager is a legitimate project management technique used for making informed decisions based on a manager’s skills, knowledge, and expertise. While the project manager might be using personal judgment here, this specific action—adding unapproved features—is not an example of expert judgment. Rather, it’s a deviation from best practices.

D. Value added change might sound appropriate since the added features are seen as beneficial, but it’s not the correct term. True value-added changes go through formal change control processes and are approved by stakeholders or the customer. In contrast, gold plating happens outside of that structure and lacks official approval.

In summary, the project manager is using leftover funds to include features that were not part of the agreed scope. While possibly beneficial, this unauthorized change is an example of gold plating. In professional project and program management environments, gold plating is seen as a risk that undermines scope control and can create unnecessary complications or customer expectations that weren't originally planned for.

Question 8:

Andy is the program manager of the HQN Program. This program is nearing its completion, and there is still $25,000 left in the program budget. Andy has asked the program team to identify some extra deliverables that can be included in the program scope to improve the program deliverable but also to use all of the funds in the budget. What term is assigned to the actions that Andy is trying to do in this instance?

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

Answer: D – Gold plating

Explanation:

In this scenario, Andy is attempting to include extra deliverables or additional features in the program’s scope in order to utilize the remaining budget, even though the core scope has already been completed. The term that best describes this behavior is Gold plating.

Gold plating occurs when additional work or features are added to a project beyond the agreed-upon requirements, often without the customer or stakeholder requesting it. This typically happens in an attempt to use all available resources (such as budget or time) and may result in unnecessary features that do not add real value to the project, but might cause the program to exceed its planned objectives.

Gold plating is considered a poor practice in project management because it can lead to scope creep, increased costs, and delays without delivering proportional value. The focus should ideally remain on delivering what was originally agreed upon, within the defined scope, time, and cost constraints.

Let’s review the other options to explain why they are incorrect:

• A. Value-added change requests – This is a formal process in project management for requesting changes that provide additional value to the project. These changes are typically made with stakeholder agreement to enhance the project's value or outcomes, and are not done simply to use up the remaining budget. The actions Andy is considering are not about adding value based on customer or stakeholder needs but are focused on utilizing the remaining funds.

• B. Zero-based budgeting – This refers to the process of budgeting from scratch (starting at zero) for each new budget cycle. In zero-based budgeting, each program or department must justify its entire budget, rather than simply adjusting the previous year's budget. This has nothing to do with the scenario where Andy is trying to spend the remaining budget by adding extra deliverables.

• C. Integrated change control – Integrated change control is a process used to ensure that all changes to the project are properly managed and evaluated in terms of their impact on the project. While change control is important to manage changes to scope, schedule, and costs, the specific action Andy is taking is not about evaluating or approving changes formally, but rather about adding unnecessary deliverables to the program to use up remaining funds, which is not appropriate within the context of integrated change control.

In summary, the correct term for the actions Andy is attempting to undertake is Gold plating. Gold plating involves adding features or work that was not originally planned, simply to exhaust the remaining budget. It is generally seen as a negative practice in project management, as it often leads to unnecessary work, increased costs, and can divert focus from delivering the core objectives of the project.

Therefore, the correct answer is D – Gold plating.

Question 9:

Which type of analysis can be used in a program to examine and compare the attributes of supportive stakeholders—including their stance, authority, and impact on the program—against those of stakeholders who are opposed to the program?

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

Answer: D

Explanation:

The scenario describes a need to evaluate both positive and negative stakeholders—specifically comparing their stance (position), their level of authority (power), and the extent of their involvement or impact (influence) on the program. This type of evaluation involves understanding opposing forces within a program and how they affect progress or decisions. The appropriate analytical tool for such a situation is force field analysis.

Force field analysis is a decision-making technique developed by Kurt Lewin that helps examine the forces that either support or hinder a particular change or objective. In the context of program management, this analysis is especially useful when dealing with a mix of stakeholders who have varying degrees of influence and opposition. The method involves listing and evaluating the driving forces (supporters or positive stakeholders) and the restraining forces (opponents or negative stakeholders), along with an assessment of their respective strength.

By using force field analysis, program managers can visualize the dynamic tension between those who support the program and those who resist it. This helps in strategic planning—either by strengthening the driving forces or reducing the impact of restraining ones. In the scenario, comparing supportive and resistant stakeholders by their position, power, and influence directly aligns with the structure and purpose of force field analysis.

Now, consider why the other options are incorrect:

A. Sensitivity analysis is typically used in risk management and financial modeling to determine how different variables affect a particular outcome. While useful for evaluating how changes in input values impact project results, it does not directly deal with stakeholder positions or interpersonal dynamics.

B. Stakeholder analysis is a broader process that identifies stakeholders, assesses their needs, expectations, and influence, and develops engagement strategies. While it is essential in stakeholder management, it doesn’t specifically focus on comparing opposing stakeholders in a structured framework of driving versus restraining forces. It is more about identifying and understanding each stakeholder individually rather than evaluating the net impact of opposing groups.

C. Monte Carlo simulation is a quantitative risk analysis technique that uses random sampling and probability distributions to simulate a range of possible outcomes. It is most relevant for forecasting and uncertainty analysis in project cost, schedule, or performance—not stakeholder influence dynamics.

To conclude, the best way to analyze and compare supportive and opposing stakeholders—particularly by evaluating their influence and effect on program outcomes—is through force field analysis. This tool enables program managers to understand the balance of support and resistance within their stakeholder environment and to make informed decisions about how to address these dynamics to guide the program toward success.

Question 10:

You are the program manager of the BHG Program. One of the projects in your program will be using new materials that are somewhat untested. You are worried that there may be delays and waste because the project team is unaware of how to accurately use these materials. You elect to send the people that will be using the new materials through training on how to complete their project work. You also allow them to purchase some of the materials to experiment on their use before the actual project work is to be done. You want to ensure that mistakes do not enter into the project. What type of action have you provided in this scenario?

A. This is an example of a preventive action.
B. This is an example of team development.
C. This is an example of quality assurance.
D. This is an example of a corrective action.

Answer: A – This is an example of a preventive action.

Explanation:

In project management, preventive actions are taken to eliminate or reduce the probability of potential risks occurring. These actions are proactive steps designed to prevent problems from arising before they impact the project. In the scenario provided, you are taking steps to train your team and allow them to experiment with the new materials in advance to ensure that mistakes are minimized and the team is prepared. These steps aim to prevent future issues, such as delays or waste, that could occur from the team not understanding how to use the materials correctly. Therefore, this is clearly a preventive action.

Now let’s break down each option in detail to understand why A is the correct answer:

• A. This is an example of a preventive action. – Correct. Preventive actions are proactive steps taken to ensure potential problems or risks do not materialize. In this case, you are addressing the risk that untested materials may cause delays or waste due to a lack of knowledge. By providing training and allowing the team to experiment with the materials beforehand, you are taking steps to avoid those risks. This is a classic example of preventive action, as it focuses on preventing issues from arising in the future.

• B. This is an example of team development. – This is incorrect. Team development focuses on improving the effectiveness and cohesion of a team. While providing training and allowing experimentation might help with team development, the primary purpose of these actions is to prevent issues related to the new materials. Team development typically refers to activities aimed at improving communication, trust, and collaboration within the team, not necessarily preventing project risks or issues.

• C. This is an example of quality assurance. – This is incorrect. Quality assurance (QA) involves monitoring and evaluating the processes used in the project to ensure that they meet the required standards and quality criteria. While training and testing the new materials may improve the quality of the project work, quality assurance is more about verifying that the processes and standards are being followed, rather than addressing risks proactively. In this scenario, you are focused on preventing mistakes rather than monitoring or evaluating the quality of the work after it is completed.

• D. This is an example of a corrective action. – This is incorrect. Corrective actions are taken when something has gone wrong or does not meet expectations. They are reactive and are used to fix problems after they have occurred. In this scenario, there is no problem that has already occurred, and you are not taking action to fix something that is already wrong. Instead, you are trying to prevent problems before they happen, which is why preventive action is the correct term.

To summarize, the actions you are taking—training the team and allowing them to experiment with the new materials—are intended to proactively reduce the risk of delays and waste due to the team’s lack of knowledge. This is a clear example of a preventive action, aimed at ensuring that potential issues are addressed before they impact the project.

Therefore, the correct answer is A – This is an example of a preventive action.