Process — Scope, schedule, quality & procurement
Operational module covering WBS/backlog, milestones, dependencies, critical path, quality, cost of quality, contracts, and vendor performance.
Estimated time : 100 min
Learning objectives
- Break scope into verifiable deliverables.
- Read dependencies, float, and critical path.
- Choose between prevention, assurance, control, and quality improvement.
- Connect contract type, vendor risk, and procurement strategy.
Key concepts
- WBS
- Hierarchical decomposition of scope into deliverables and work packages.
- PMBOK scope management
- Critical path
- Sequence of activities determining the minimum project duration; any slip delays the project.
- PMBOK schedule management
- Cost of quality
- Cost of prevention and appraisal plus internal and external failure costs.
- PMBOK quality management
- Contract type
- Financial risk allocation between buyer and seller: fixed price, time and material, cost reimbursable.
- PMBOK procurement management
1. Scope: WBS, backlog, and acceptance
Scope is controlled only when everyone understands what is included, excluded, accepted, and measured. In predictive delivery, the WBS and baseline structure control; in agile, the prioritized backlog carries evolution.
| Approach | Scope artifact | Expected control |
|---|---|---|
| Predictive | Charter, WBS, WBS dictionary, baseline | Impact analysis + change control |
| Agile | Product backlog, user stories, acceptance criteria | Value prioritization + increment review |
| Hybrid | Baseline for stable components + backlog for evolving components | Separate but integrated governance |
Scope creep trap
An addition requested by a sponsor is still a change. Their authority does not remove impact analysis.
Artifact → decision → PMI action map
Artifact
Product backlog + Definition of Done + flow metrics
Decision
Does the work maximize value without breaking flow?
PMI action
Reprioritize with the PO, limit WIP, protect the sprint, and measure delivery.
Avoid: Adding work to the sprint or changing priority without value trade-off.
Recommendations
- Always connect a deliverable to acceptance criteria.
- Document exclusions to avoid misunderstandings.
Tips
- Predictive = baseline; agile = backlog; hybrid = both with clear rules.
- No hidden change in a governed project.
Chapter quiz
1.A sponsor asks to add a deliverable outside the baseline. What comes first?
2. Schedule: dependencies, float, and critical path
Schedule management depends on the approach: milestones and critical path in predictive, cadence and velocity in agile, dependency synchronization in hybrid.
Marge totale = LS - ES = LF - EFIf total float is 0, the activity is on the critical path.
A CPM network shows why only some activities directly drive the final finish date.
Identifying the real impact of a delay
Two paths exist: A-B-D lasts 12 days and A-C-D lasts 14 days. Activity B slips by 2 days; activity C slips by 1 day.
- Initial critical path: A-C-D = 14 days because it is longer than A-B-D.
- After B slips: A-B-D = 14 days. The path reaches the critical path but does not exceed total duration yet.
- After C slips: A-C-D = 15 days. The project slips by 1 day.
The right action is to analyze the network before compressing: C directly threatens the finish date, while B consumes its float.
Classic responses to a delay
| Situation | Healthy response |
|---|---|
| Critical activity delayed | Analyze compression: fast tracking, crashing, risks, and cost. |
| Non-critical activity delayed within float | Monitor but do not panic. |
| Unstable external dependency | Clarify commitment, risk, contingency plan, and communication. |
Fast tracking vs crashing
Fast tracking: perform activities in parallel at the cost of increased risk. Crashing: add resources at the cost of increased cost.
Artifact → decision → PMI action map
Artifact
Cost/schedule baseline + EVM + vendor register
Decision
Is the variance cost, schedule, quality, or vendor-related?
PMI action
Calculate variance, forecast impact, propose correction, and update plans.
Avoid: Correcting the schedule without understanding the variance cause.
Recommendations
- Analyze the critical path before compression.
- Keep dependencies visible in the integrated plan.
Tips
- Float 0 = maximum attention.
- Compression = cost/risk trade-off, never automatic.
Chapter quiz
1.A non-critical activity has 5 days of float and slips by 2 days. What should you do?
3. Quality, procurement, and contracts
Quality and procurement meet in acceptance criteria: the project must define what will be accepted, how it will be verified, and how the vendor will be managed.
Cost of quality
| Category | Example | PMP reading |
|---|---|---|
| Prevention | Training, standards, test automation | Invest early to avoid defects. |
| Appraisal | Reviews, audits, inspections | Verify during the work. |
| Internal failure | Rework before delivery | Visible but recoverable cost. |
| External failure | Customer incident, warranty, reputation | Most dangerous cost. |
Contract types
| Contract | Buyer risk | When to use |
|---|---|---|
| Fixed Price | Low if scope is clear | Stable and well-defined deliverable. |
| Time & Material | Medium | Uncertain effort but need for flexibility. |
| Cost reimbursable | High | Research, innovation, high uncertainty. |
Quality reflex
The PMP answer prefers preventing and improving the system rather than massively correcting at the end.
Artifact → decision → PMI action map
Artifact
Cost/schedule baseline + EVM + vendor register
Decision
Is the variance cost, schedule, quality, or vendor-related?
PMI action
Calculate variance, forecast impact, propose correction, and update plans.
Avoid: Correcting the schedule without understanding the variance cause.
Recommendations
- Include quality criteria in vendor contracts.
- Measure vendor performance regularly.
- Address recurring defects through root cause.
Tips
- Vague scope + fixed price = likely conflict.
- Quality = conformance to requirements + fitness for use.
Chapter quiz
1.A vendor often delivers similar defects. Which action is most PMP-aligned?
Decision toolkit
PMP decision trees & running case
Use this when two answers look right: qualify the context, choose the artifact, then act.
Change request
A sponsor, customer, or user asks to change scope, cost, schedule, or quality.
1. Predictive approach with an approved baseline.
Decision: Analyze impact before acting.
Action: Document the request, assess impacts, then route it through integrated change control/CCB.
2. Agile approach with a product backlog.
Decision: Do not disrupt the current sprint.
Action: Add it to the backlog, clarify value, and reprioritize with the Product Owner.
3. Urgent compliance/safety-related change.
Decision: Protect compliance and transparency.
Action: Analyze quickly, inform governance authorities, and record the decision.
Trap: Implementing directly because the sponsor asked bypasses governance.
Risk vs issue
An event may happen or has just happened.
1. The event is uncertain.
Decision: Treat it as a risk.
Action: Qualify probability/impact, choose response, owner, and reserve.
2. The event has occurred.
Decision: Treat it as an issue.
Action: Create corrective action, assign an owner, and track to closure.
3. The issue creates new risks.
Decision: Update both logs/registers.
Action: Issue log for immediate action, risk register for remaining uncertainty.
Trap: A materialized risk is no longer just monitored: action is required.
Vendor delay
A vendor announces a delay, quality issue, or resource unavailability.
1. The contract defines SLAs, milestones, or penalties.
Decision: Check commitments before negotiating.
Action: Compare contract, actual performance, and project impacts.
2. The delay impacts the critical path or value.
Decision: Evaluate alternatives and reserve.
Action: Analyze fast tracking, replanning, another vendor, or scope trade-off.
3. The vendor relationship is recoverable.
Decision: Collaborate without losing contractual control.
Action: Dated action plan, checkpoints, and risk register update.
Trap: Threatening the vendor before analyzing contract and impact is a poor first response.
Digital project: omnichannel customer portal
Charter
Objective: reduce support calls by 25% in 6 months through secure self-service.
Backlog / WBS
Product backlog, MVP, monthly releases, Definition of Done including security and analytics.
Stakeholders
- CX sponsor, Product Owner, dev team, security, support, pilot customers.
- Success measured by adoption, resolution rate, and satisfaction.
Risks
- Low adoption if the portal does not solve real pain points.
- Security risk around authentication and personal data.
Change
Major change: add an AI chatbot. PMI response: value, risks, compliance, backlog, and prioritization.
EVM
Light EVM: release budget vs delivered value; also track burnup and real adoption.
Closure
Support transition, runbook, training, benefits measurement at 30/60/90 days.
Practical examples
Poorly framed fixed-price contract
Scenario : The customer wants fixed price while requirements change weekly.
Project manager's action : Clarify scope, change mechanism, or propose a more flexible contract.
Exam strategy
- A scope change must be visible: WBS/baseline or backlog depending on approach.
- On a delay, analyze critical path and dependencies before adding resources.
- Quality is built early; final inspection is too late.
- A vendor is managed through contract, acceptance criteria, performance, and relationship.
Module assessment
1.Which choice best reduces late defect risk?