CAPM 7 – Project Time Management Questions with Answers

The best answer is '3-point Estimating'. This technique refers to the process of using a mathematical approach to estimating the probability and expected timing of tasks. It involves the calculation of the weighted averages of optimistic, pessimistic, and most likely estimates. 'Historical Relationship Method' is a technique that relies on statistical relationships between historical data and other variable or flow. 'Monte Carlo Analysis' is a risk management technique used to find out the probability of a project coming in on time or on budget. However, it does not specifically use the weighted averages of optimistic, pessimistic, and most likely estimates. 'Analogous Estimating', on the other hand, involves using the actual cost of previous, similar projects as the base for estimating the cost of the current project, which does not incorporate the approach of weighted averages of different types of estimates.

The best answer is to perform a thorough resource audit and eliminate the redundant resources. This directly addresses the issue at hand, which is the redundancy of resources causing increased operational costs. Evaluating the resources will help identify what is necessary and what is redundant, thus reducing costs. The other answers might not solve the problem effectively: Investing in more resources to balance redundancy (which is already a problem) would just compound the issue. Increasing production targets could lead to an overproduction problem if the market demand doesn't match up and it still doesn't resolve the resource redundancy issue. Neglecting the redundancy would mean accepting unnecessary operational cost increases, which is undesirable for any business.

The correct way to calculate the expected time in a PERT analysis is to use the formula: ((optimistic time + 4 * most likely time + pessimistic time) / 6). The optimistic time is 4 days, the pessimistic time is 16 days, and the most likely time is 7 days. Thus, the expected time should be calculated as follows: ((4 days + 4 * 7 days + 16 days) / 6) = 7.67 days (approximately). The second option ((4 + 7 + 16) / 3) days is incorrect because it represents the simple average of the estimates, which is not the correct method in PERT analysis. The answers '7 days' and '16 days' are merely the most likely and pessimistic estimates respectively, and do not incorporate the other estimates as the correct formula does.

The PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) analysis method calculates the expected time for tasks in a project by using a weighted average: Expected Time = (Optimistic Time + 4*Most Likely Time + Pessimistic Time) / 6. In this case, by substituting values: Expected Time = (10 + 4*15 + 25) / 6, which results in 16 days. This makes answer number 147566 as '16 days' the correct one. The other answer '12 days' is incorrect because it is less than the 'Most Likely Time' provided, and PERT expected time is a weighted average that should fall between the optimistic and pessimistic times. The '20 days' answer is incorrect because it exceeds the calculated expected time. The '18 days' answer is too close to the pessimistic time and doesn't reflect the provided most likely time properly.

The first step when you realize you need to revise and add new activities to a project should be to revisit your Activity Definition process. This is because every new activity has an impact on the resources, timescale, and quality outcome of the project, and these impacts need to be assessed and planned for. Therefore, thorough identification and definition of the new activities are crucial. Once the new activities are clearly defined, the project plan can be revised accordingly and resources can be allocated effectively. The answer 'Negotiate for additional resources to handle the new activities.' is not the best first step because adding additional resources doesn't help define the activities that the resources will be used for. The answer 'Proceed with the current activities and push back the new ones to the end.' falls short because deferring new activities without a clear definition and alignment with the project plan might negatively impact the project timeline and end result. The response 'Delegate the new activities to the team without adjusting the project plan.' is incorrect because delegation without due planning may lead to confusion, mismanagement, overwork, or resource mismatch.

The best course of action in this scenario would be to revise the project plan to sequence the activities properly. This is because unit tests are integral to the software development process, helping to catch and rectify issues early on before the software becomes integrated with the rest of the system. Ignoring the developer's suggestion and proceeding as planned could potentially lead to problems later down the line, and firing the senior developer for his contradictory suggestion is both unprofessional and unreasonable as their advice is based on industry best practices. Finally, seeking permission from stakeholders to eliminate unit testing altogether is not a feasible option since it is likely to compromise the quality of the final product.

The answer 'Evaluate the task, and if it recurs frequently, find ways to reduce the setup time.' is most fitting because it is about analyzing the cause of the delay and finding methods to reduce it. 'Penalize the person responsible for the task.' doesn’t consider the structural factors that might be contributing to delay and could lead to a negative working environment. 'Skip the task if it's not critical for project completion.' is not always the feasible solution because the task may be vital for other operations. 'Increase the buffer time for the task each time it's scheduled.' might circumvent the issue momentarily but wouldn't permanently address the problem.

In Critical Chain Project Management, the role of a project buffer is to protect the project completion date by safeguarding against uncertainties in individual task durations. This is achieved by adding buffers strategically in the project schedule to account for variability in task completion times without impacting the overall project deadline. The other answer choices are incorrect as they do not accurately describe the specific purpose of a project buffer in Critical Chain Project Management.

The best approach for rolling wave planning in a start-up context, where the business model and revenue strategy may evolve, is to create detailed plans for immediate milestones while leaving the rest of the project at a high-level plan. As customer feedback and market analysis are collected, the high-level plan can then be refined and detailed further. This technique is consistent with agile methodologies and allows the project plan to adapt to changes and uncertainties. The other responses suggest either rigid detailed planning from the start, neglecting to plan beyond immediate milestones, or setting a fixed plan with no room for adjustments- all of these perpetuate inflexibility and are usually not suitable in such dynamic business conditions.

The correct answer is 'Fast-tracking'. When behind schedule on a critical path of a project, fast-tracking is a common technique used to catch up. This involves doing multiple activities simultaneously that were initially planned to be done in sequence, thus saving time. On the other hand, 'Scope reduction' would compromise the project's initial goals, making it an undesirable option. 'Cost budgeting' relates to the control of expenses in a project and not to the schedule management, hence it's not an appropriate response for this question. 'Resource leveling' manages the project timeline by adjusting the start and end times of tasks to match resources availability, but it doesn't necessarily speed up processes. It focuses on the fair and efficient allocation of resources rather than on catching up with the schedule.

The correct answer is to 'Cross-train team members in other areas to increase resource flexibility and employ a balanced matrix for resource allocation'. This approach increases the flexibility and efficiency of the team by enabling team members to work on tasks outside their specialization when they are not required in their area. This prevents idle time and overcomes the issue of having resources inefficiently utilized, helping the project stay within budget. The other answers are incorrect because they either lead to wasteful spending (requesting extra funds), compromise project quality (replacing specialized resources), or fail to leverage resources effectively (assigning tasks without considering expertise).

The best course of action when realizing that software debugging is happening after a software upgrade is to rearrange the project sequence so that debugging occurs before software upgrading. Debugging is a crucial step that should always precede software upgrading to ensure that any issues or bugs in the software are identified and corrected before the upgrade takes place. The other options, 'Avoid debugging and continue upgrading the software', 'Replace software upgrading with software debugging' and 'Reschedule the software debugging to a time after the software upgrade', are incorrect. Avoiding debugging or rescheduling it to occur after an upgrade might lead to undiscovered bugs being present in an upgraded version, which can be more complicated and time-consuming to fix. Replacing software upgrading with software debugging doesn't address the real issue, which is about sequence rather than replacement of processes.

The Rolling Wave Planning technique is most effectively used when the details of the project aren't clearly defined at the beginning. This technique involves planning in waves as the project unfolds and more information becomes available. The other answers are incorrect for the following reasons: a strict project schedule doesn't accommodate the flexibility provided by the Rolling Wave Planning approach. Knowing all the project activities at the start contradicts the key advantage of this technique, which is to deal with uncertainty and unknowns in the early stages of the project. Lastly, the level of experience of the project team is irrelevant to whether this planning approach should be used.

The most appropriate technique in this situation would be Analogous Estimating, as it's a technique that estimates the cost of project tasks using the actual cost of previous, similar tasks. Considering the fact that the tasks have been performed regularly in prior projects, Analogous Estimating can provide quick and reasonably accurate results. Monte Carlo Analysis, on the other hand, is used for risk analysis and not great for cost estimations. 3-point Estimating requires ample information about the possible variation in the task's performance, which may not always be accessible quickly. Lastly, Parametric Estimating uses statistical modeling and requires a lot of specific data, making it more time-consuming and less suited for quick estimates.

Rolling Wave Planning is an iterative planning technique in which the work to be accomplished in the near term is planned in detail, while the work in the future is planned at a higher level. It is a form of progressive elaboration. Therefore, the best approach would be to 'start with high-level planning, get the product basics ready and then plan in detail as more information unfolds'. This allows adaptation to changing circumstancesThe other answers are incorrect for the following reasons:- 'Start with detailed level planning and stick to the plan even if the market trends evolve or product details change.' This is not a good approach as it does not allow for the flexibility and adaptation required in situations of high unpredictability and changing details- 'Avoid planning until all product details are finalized.' This would delay the project unnecessarily and is not wise because it is not utilising time efficiently- 'Plan only for the first phase of the project and ignore the rest.' This approach might lead to overlooking potential issues or requirements in the subsequent phases of the project which could affect the overall timeline and success of the project.

The best and most effective way to organize a plan when tasks can be worked on concurrently is to schedule these tasks in parallel, ensuring that resources are allocated appropriately. This method optimizes the use of time and resources, allowing for efficient execution of the project. The answer 'Segregate the tasks to different teams and have them work independently' is not the best option because although the tasks are concurrent, better synergy and communication might be achieved when the tasks are scheduled and overseen by the same team. Similarly, 'Plan to complete these tasks one after the other' is not as efficient, as it does not utilize the opportunity to perform tasks at the same time. Lastly, the option 'Ignore the opportunity of concurrent work and follow the initial sequence' also results in an inefficient use of time and resources.