CIMA E2 - independent subject foundations: Project scope, people, risk and supplied performance models

Project scope, scheduling and earned-value models

Domain 2 tests whether you can define a project precisely, separate it from operations, program, and portfolio, and read an organizational chart to determine how much authority a project manager actually holds. Items often present a short organizational scenario and ask which structure or PMO type it describes, or ask where a given input belongs: enterprise environmental factors or organizational process assets.

Project, program, portfolio

A project is a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result; it is progressively elaborated.
Operations are ongoing and repetitive; projects end.
A program (项目集) is a group of related projects managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits not available from managing them separately.
A portfolio (项目组合) is a collection of projects, programs, and operations that support a strategic objective. Components need not be interdependent; the emphasis is on prioritisation and resource allocation.
Project governance sets decision rights, stage gates, and escalation paths above the project manager.

Process groups and knowledge areas

The five process groups are initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing. Monitoring and controlling spans the whole lifecycle.
These cross the ten knowledge areas to form the classic matrix; each process has inputs, tools and techniques, and outputs.
Do not confuse the project lifecycle (phases ending in a stage gate) with the product lifecycle (which outlives the project).

Organization type and PMO

Functional: the project manager coordinates and has little authority; the functional manager controls budget and staff.
Projectized structures commonly give the project manager greater authority, subject to actual governance and resource constraints.
Matrix runs weak, balanced, and strong. In a strong matrix the project manager is full-time, controls the budget, and has moderate-to-high authority, while the functional manager owns technical standards.
PMO types: supportive (templates, advice), controlling (compliance required), directive (directly manages projects).
Enterprise environmental factors (EEF) are conditions you generally cannot change: culture, infrastructure, market conditions, laws, existing systems. Organizational process assets (OPA) are things you reuse: processes, policies, templates, historical data, lessons-learned repositories.

Worked example

A project manager is assigned full-time from the engineering department, reports to a program manager, approves the schedule and budget, and draws staff from engineering, finance, and a vendor, while the engineering manager still sets coding standards. The project manager's full-time status and budget control make this a strong matrix, not a balanced one. If the project manager only coordinated and the functional manager approved all resource assignments, it would be a weak matrix.

Traps that cost marks

Treating portfolio components as necessarily related.
Assuming a directive PMO only advises; it manages the project.
Classifying templates and lessons-learned databases as EEF.
Assuming matrix structures remove the functional manager's technical authority.

Domain 4 tests the six scope processes and, above all, whether you can tell product scope from project scope and verification from quality control. Case questions frequently describe a customer demanding extra features mid-project, and the expected answer is the change control path rather than informal accommodation.

The process chain

Planning scope management, collecting requirements, defining scope, creating the WBS, validating scope, controlling scope.

Requirements tools: interviews, focus groups, facilitated workshops such as JAD, questionnaires, benchmarking, prototyping, brainstorming, nominal group technique, observation, document analysis, context diagrams.
Outputs are the requirements document plus the requirements traceability matrix, which links each requirement to a deliverable, a test case, and a business objective.

Scope statement and WBS

The project scope statement contains the product scope description, deliverables, acceptance criteria, and exclusions (项目除外责任). Exclusions prevent later disputes.
The WBS is a deliverable-oriented hierarchical decomposition, not a schedule and not a list of activities.
The 100% rule: the children of any node must fully define the parent, no more and no less.
A work package is a lowest-level WBS component under the chosen decomposition;8-to 80 hours is a planning heuristic, not a universal rule. A control account sits above work packages for cost and schedule roll-up; a planning package holds work not yet decomposed.
The WBS dictionary defines each element's scope, acceptance criteria, and responsible party.

Validation and control

Validate scope is formal acceptance of completed deliverables by the customer or sponsor; it follows quality control, which checks correctness.
Control scope manages changes to the scope baseline. Scope creep is uncontrolled expansion; gold plating is voluntary extra functionality nobody requested. Both are defects.

Worked example

A data-centre project is decomposed into: civil works, power supply and UPS, cooling and ventilation, network cabling, fire and security, and project management. If the contract also requires operator training and no training element appears anywhere in the WBS, the decomposition violates the 100% rule even though every listed branch looks complete.

Traps that cost marks

Confusing validate scope (customer acceptance) with control quality (conformance checking).
Treating the WBS as an activity list or a schedule.
Omitting exclusions from the scope statement.
Accepting a verbal change request; scope changes go through integrated change control and the CCB.

Domain 5 covers the six scheduling processes, with heavy emphasis on dependency logic, three-point estimation, critical path calculation, float, and schedule compression. Expect at least one network-diagram calculation and one question distinguishing resource levelling from resource smoothing.

Building the schedule

Sequence activities with the precedence diagramming method. Four logical relationships: finish-to-start, start-to-start, finish-to-finish, start-to-finish.
Dependencies are mandatory or discretionary, internal or external. Leads and lags adjust them.
Duration estimating tools: analogous, parametric, bottom-up, three-point, and reserve analysis.
PERT beta estimate = (O + 4 M + P) / 6; standard deviation = (P − O) / 6; triangular estimate = (O + M + P) / 3.

Critical path and float

In a basic unconstrained precedence network, a longest path determines minimum duration and normally has zero total float. Imposed constraints and calendars can change float interpretation, and multiple critical paths can exist.
Total float = LS − ES = LF − EF. Free float = earliest start of the successor − early finish of the activity.
Negative total float indicates conflict with an imposed date under the current plan; investigate logic, resources, scope and constraints before selecting compression or an authorized date change.
Resource levelling may extend the critical path; resource smoothing keeps the critical path and dates unchanged by using float only.
Compression: crashing adds resources or overtime and raises cost; fast tracking overlaps activities and raises risk and rework.

Control

Performance reviews, earned value schedule indicators, burn-down charts, variance analysis, what-if simulation such as Monte Carlo, and schedule baseline change control.

Worked example

Network: A(3) precedes B(4) and C(6); both precede D(5). Path A-B-D = 12 days; path A-C-D = 14 days. The critical path is A-C-D at 14 days. For B: early start 3, early finish 7, and its successor D cannot start until 9, so late finish 9 and total float 2 days. Crashing B would not shorten the project; only A, C, or D can.

Traps that cost marks

Crashing a non-critical activity and claiming the project finishes earlier.
Saying resource smoothing may change the critical path; it does not.
Confusing free float with total float.
Assuming fast tracking increases cost; it mainly increases risk.
Forgetting that the critical path can change after compression.

Domain 6 combines cost-estimating concepts with earned value management, which is the most reliably examined calculation on the paper. You must know which reserves sit inside the cost baseline, how to compute variances and indices, and which EAC formula to apply given a described pattern of deviation.

Estimating and budgeting

Estimating methods: analogous (fast, low accuracy), parametric, bottom-up (accurate, costly), three-point.
Cost types: variable and fixed, direct and indirect, sunk and opportunity cost.
Contingency reserve covers known-unknowns and sits inside the cost baseline. Management reserve covers unknown-unknowns, sits outside the baseline, and needs senior approval. Cost baseline = project budget − management reserve.
Sunk cost must be excluded from go/no-go decisions.

Earned value core

PV planned value, EV earned value, AC actual cost.
SV = EV − PV; CV = EV − AC.
SPI = EV / PV; CPI = EV / AC.
ETC = EAC − AC; VAC = BAC − EAC; TCPI = (BAC − EV) / (BAC − AC).
Forecasts: atypical variance EAC = AC + (BAC − EV); typical variance EAC = BAC / CPI; mixed EAC = AC + (BAC − EV) / (CPI × SPI).
Depreciation exercises require the specified accounting method, useful life and residual-value assumptions; no universal two-year switching rule or permission to depreciate below the applicable residual amount is implied.

Worked example

BAC = 100万元; at month 6, PV = 40, EV = 35, AC = 45. SV = −5万元, CV = −10万元, SPI = 0.875, CPI = 0.778. The project is behind schedule and over budget. Because the deviation looks systemic, use the typical formula: EAC = 100 / 0.778 = 128.6万元, and VAC = 100 − 128.6 = −28.6万元. If the stem states the overrun was a one-off event, use the atypical formula instead.

Traps that cost marks

Placing management reserve inside the cost baseline.
Using SPI = 1 to conclude the project is healthy while CPI < 1.
Choosing the EAC formula without reading whether the deviation is typical.
Letting sunk cost influence the decision.
Computing CV as EV − AC but reporting it as a percentage without the base.

Project quality, evidence and process variation

This chapter develops the distinction between quality and grade, between managing quality and controlling quality, and the correct use of the seven basic quality tools. Items also probe the cost of quality and control-chart interpretation, including the rule of seven.

Core concepts

Quality is the degree to which the product meets requirements; grade is a category of technical features. Low grade is acceptable, low quality is not.
Prevention over inspection; quality is planned in, not inspected in.
Managing quality (quality assurance) is process-oriented and performed throughout; controlling quality is product-oriented and inspects deliverables.
Cost of quality: conformance costs (prevention and appraisal) versus non-conformance costs (internal and external failure). External failures can have substantial consequences, but no cost category is necessarily the largest in every project.

Tools

Seven basic quality tools: cause-and-effect diagram, flowchart, check sheet, Pareto chart, histogram, control chart, scatter diagram.
A Pareto chart ranks observed categories and cumulative contributions;80/20 is a heuristic, not a required ratio in every dataset.
A control chart plots process data against control limits, usually set at ±3 sigma from process data ; not specification limits. A chosen run-rule procedure may flag seven consecutive points on one side or a trend for investigation. The rule, chart design and false-alarm behavior must be specified; a signal is not proof of a particular cause.
Managing-quality tools include affinity diagrams, process decision program charts, interrelationship digraphs, tree diagrams, prioritisation matrices, activity network diagrams, and matrix diagrams.
Sampling: attribute sampling gives pass/fail; variable sampling measures degree of conformity.

Worked example

A defect log records 120 defects: interface errors 70, data-migration errors 25, UI issues 15, performance 10. Cumulative shares: 58%, 79%, 92%. A Pareto chart shows interface and migration defects are the vital few, so the improvement effort goes there first. A histogram would only show the distribution shape; a cause-and-effect diagram would explore why the interface defects occur.

Traps that cost marks

Confusing managing quality with controlling quality.
Treating specification limits as control limits.
Using a Pareto chart to find root causes; it prioritises, the fishbone analyses causes.
Assuming sampling proves every unit conforms.
Claiming quality is solely the QA department's responsibility.

Project people, communication and stakeholder decisions

Domain 8 covers acquiring and developing the team, motivation and conflict theory, and communication planning. Calculation items on communication channels are common, and scenario items ask you to identify a team-development stage or the best conflict-resolution approach.

Team management

RACI assigns roles: R executes, A is accountable, with one accountable owner per activity under the stated RACI convention, C is consulted, I is informed.
Tuckman's stages: forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning. Conflict peaks in storming; the manager's job is to move the team forward, not to suppress conflict.
Motivation: Maslow's hierarchy; Herzberg's two-factor theory where salary, policy, and working conditions are hygiene factors that prevent dissatisfaction but do not motivate, while achievement, recognition, responsibility, and growth motivate; McGregor's Theory X and Y; McClelland's need for achievement, power, and affiliation.
Conflict methods: withdraw/avoid, smooth/accommodate, compromise, force, collaborate/problem-solve. Collaborate is best when the issue matters and time permits.

Communication

Communication model: encode, medium, decode, with noise throughout; feedback closes the loop.
Channels = N(N − 1) / 2, where N includes the project manager.
Methods: interactive (most effective for complex, ambiguous messages), push, pull.
The communication management plan defines who needs what, in what format, at what frequency, through which channel, plus escalation paths and glossary.
Stakeholder engagement uses the power-interest grid to decide how closely each group is managed.

Worked example

A team of 12 including the project manager has 12 × 11 / 2 = 66 channels. Three specialists join, giving 15 members and 15 × 14 / 2 = 105 channels, an increase of 39. The project manager should update the communication management plan, formalise status reporting, and schedule structured coordination rather than assuming the extra people simply talk more.

Traps that cost marks

Naming salary as a motivator under Herzberg.
Treating forcing as the preferred conflict method; it is a last resort.
Allowing two accountable owners for one activity in a RACI chart.
Excluding the project manager when counting communication channels.
Confusing the communication management plan with the stakeholder register.

Project risk, expected value and response choices

This chapter develops the seven risk processes and the vocabulary that separates risk from issue, threat from opportunity, and contingency reserve from management reserve. Quantitative items typically use expected monetary value or a small decision tree.

Identify and analyse

A risk is an uncertain event that, if it occurs, affects objectives; it has a cause, an event, and an impact. An issue has already happened.
Identification tools: brainstorming, Delphi (anonymous, multi-round, converging), interviews, root-cause analysis, SWOT, checklists, assumption analysis, document review.
Qualitative analysis: probability-impact matrix, risk categorisation via a risk breakdown structure, data-quality assessment, urgency.
Quantitative analysis: expected monetary value, decision trees, Monte Carlo simulation, sensitivity analysis displayed as a tornado chart.

Respond and monitor

Threat responses: escalate, avoid, transfer, mitigate, accept. Opportunity responses: exploit, share, enhance, accept.
Transferring risk, for example by insurance or fixed-price outsourcing, shifts financial responsibility but does not eliminate the risk.
Contingency reserve covers known-unknowns; management reserve covers unknown-unknowns.
Monitoring uses risk audits, reserve analysis, technical performance analysis, and risk reassessment. A workaround is an unplanned response to an emerged risk; a corrective action fixes an existing deviation.

Worked example

Option A: invest 100万元, with a 70% chance of earning 300万元 and a 30% chance of earning 50万元. EMV = 0.7 × 300 + 0.3 × 50 − 100 = 210 + 15 − 100 = 125万元. Option B: invest 60万元, with a 90% chance of 150万元 and a 10% chance of zero. EMV = 135 − 60 = 75万元. Choose A on EMV, while noting that A’s minimum modeled net outcome is−50万元 and B’s is−60万元. Expected value and worst-case outcome answer different questions, and these are supplied hypothetical payoffs.

Traps that cost marks

Saying transfer eliminates risk.
Using management reserve for an identified, assessed risk.
Labelling an already-occurred problem as a risk.
Treating acceptance as always passive; active acceptance can include contingency resources and a planned response rather than simply ignoring the risk.
Forgetting that EMV is a statistical average, not a guarantee.

Procurement choices, supplied contracts and incentives

Domain 10 covers make-or-buy analysis, the three contract families and their risk allocation, the source-selection process, and contract control. Calculation items on incentive-fee contracts appear regularly, as do scenario items on which contract type suits an unclear scope.

Planning procurement

Make-or-buy analysis compares internal cost and capability against external supply.
Fixed-price family: firm-fixed-price (FFP) suits a well-defined scope and puts maximum cost risk on the seller; fixed-price incentive fee (FPIF) shares overruns against a ceiling; fixed-price with economic price adjustment (FP-EPA) protects long-term contracts against inflation.
Cost-reimbursable family: cost plus fixed fee (CPFF), cost plus incentive fee (CPIF), cost plus award fee (CPAF). The buyer bears most cost risk and must audit the seller's costs.
Time and materials (T&M) is used for small, urgent, or poorly defined work and should carry a ceiling.
Procurement documents: RFI, RFP (solution and price), RFQ (price), IFB (bid).

Conduct and control

Conduct procurement: bidder conferences, independent cost estimates, proposal evaluation, negotiation, award.
Control procurement: contract change control, performance review, inspection and audit, seller payment, claims administration, and procurement audit. Use the actual contract’s authorized change procedure and applicable law. A written approval trail supports control, but no blanket statement about every possible oral agreement is inferred here.

Worked example

FPIF: target cost 100万元, target fee 10万元, target price 110万元, ceiling price 130万元, sharing 70% buyer / 30% seller. Actual cost is 120万元, an overrun of 20万元; the seller bears 6万元, so fee = 10 − 6 = 4万元 and price = 124万元, below the ceiling. If actual cost were 140万元, the computed price would be 138万元, but the ceiling caps the seller at 130万元, so the seller absorbs a 10万元 loss.

Traps that cost marks

Choosing cost-reimbursable contracts for a stable, well-defined scope.
Forgetting that CPFF requires the buyer to audit seller costs.
Ignoring the ceiling when computing FPIF settlements.
Accepting an oral contract change.
Confusing a procurement audit with a financial statement audit.

Project case analysis, baseline control and calculations

An applied study exercise presents a system integration scenario followed by questions that require both a calculation and a diagnosis. Markers reward structural answers that name the management process at fault, quote the evidence in the stem, and propose an executable remedy. Vague exhortations score nothing.

Answering pattern

For every "what went wrong" question, work in four moves:

Name the missing or misapplied process, using formal terminology such as integrated change control, requirements traceability, validate scope, or risk identification.
Quote the specific fact from the stem that proves it, for example "the customer's new report requirement was implemented the same day without a change request".
Explain the consequence: baseline breach, rework, schedule slip, disputed acceptance.
Give the corrective action plus the preventive control.

Recurring case themes

Change control breakdown: no written request, no CCB review, no baseline update, no customer sign-off.
Requirements defects: unverified requirements, no traceability matrix, missing exclusions.
Schedule failure: single-point estimates, no critical path, overuse of fast tracking.
Quality failure: inspection substituted for process control, no test plan, external failure at cutover.
Stakeholder and procurement failure: key operator not identified, contract scope silent on training and data migration.

Worked example

At the end of month 6, PV = 50万元, EV = 40万元, AC = 48万元, BAC = 100万元. SPI = 0.80 and CPI = 0.83, so the project is behind schedule and over budget. The stem notes the client verbally demanded an extra report, which the team built immediately. The answer scores by stating: no change request was submitted, the CCB never assessed impact, the scope and cost baselines were not updated, and the unplanned work is an identified plausible contributor to the deviation, requiring evidence of the actual schedule impact. Remedies: recording and assessing the unauthorized change through the actual governance path, re-baseline with client approval, add the requirement to the traceability matrix, and tighten configuration management. Then compute EAC using the typical formula, 100 / (40/48) =120万元.

Traps that cost marks

Writing only "strengthen management" with no named process.
Giving a diagnosis without citing the stem's facts.
Skipping calculation steps and writing only the final figure.
Omitting preventive controls after listing corrections.
Answering a change-control question with a scheduling remedy.