The Dashboard the Board Asked For

Action: Log the dashboard as a formal change request, then run it through the project's documented change control process - assess impact on scope, schedule, cost, quality, resources, and risk - and route the assessment to the sponsor/change control board for a decision.

Why not just accept it:

• Verbal scope additions bypass the baseline, so the work becomes invisible in status reporting. With CPI already at 0.88, unplanned work will worsen the variance without any corresponding approved baseline change, and Priya will later be measured against a plan she never agreed to.
• The request may be legitimate. The exam distinction is process, not outcome: the finance director is a sign-off authority, and the board need may be real. Routing it through change control protects the request rather than killing it.

Why not just refuse:

• Refusing on principle damages a relationship with a stakeholder Priya needs for UAT acceptance, and ignores potentially valid business value.

What Priya should say: "I'll assess the impact within X days and bring you a recommendation with the schedule and cost consequences so you and the sponsor can decide." That converts a confrontation into a decision with data.

First action: Meet the functional manager to confirm the reassignment, its duration, and whether a partial allocation is possible, then quantify the schedule impact before escalating.

Constraints that shape the response:

• Authority: In a matrix organization the PM usually has little direct authority over functional staff. Priya influences through the resource management plan, the RACI/assignment documentation, and escalation - not by ordering the developers back.
• Data first: Determine whether the two developers sit on the critical path or have float. If they have float, the project may absorb the loss and escalation is unnecessary. If they are critical, the impact is immediate and the sponsor must be involved.
• Reality of the calendar: The resource calendar still shows 100% allocation, so the plan is now factually wrong. It must be corrected regardless of the outcome.
• Options are not binary: alternatives include a partial six-week allocation, backfilling with another resource, resequencing work, or accepting a schedule change through integrated change control.

Escalation path: functional manager → sponsor (who owns cross-project prioritization). Rebaselining the schedule happens only if the change is approved, not as a unilateral fix.

She should not give a yes/no promise. With CPI 0.88, SPI 0.94, 3 of 9 milestones done at month 4, and two key resources lost, a confident date commitment would be unsupported.

She should:

1. Present the variances factually - SPI 0.94 means less work was completed than planned; CPI 0.88 means each unit of work is costing more than budgeted - and note that both point the same direction.
2. Use earned value to forecast: EAC ≈ BAC / CPI gives a defensible cost projection, and the SPI trend, if it continues, produces a range of completion dates rather than a single date.
3. State the assumptions behind the forecast and what would have to be true for the original date to hold (resources restored, dashboard deferred or absorbed, no further rework).
4. Present the decision options: recover the schedule (crash/fast-track with cost and risk consequences), reduce scope, or move the date. Each is a sponsor/CCB decision.
5. Commit to a specific date for the impact analysis rather than a specific date for go-live.

Reasoning: A PM's credibility comes from accurate, early bad news plus options - not from optimistic certainty that later fails.