The Green Status Request
Your project is six weeks into a twenty-week schedule. Forty percent of the budget is spent, and the critical path runs through a single vendor deliverable that is now three weeks late. The team has been working unpaid overtime for a month to absorb the slippage. Your sponsor, who reports the project quarterly to the board, has asked you to keep the status 'green' because 'the variance is recoverable and I don't want to spook the board.' Your lead engineer, who owns the integration work, has just given four weeks' notice. The vendor says the delay is caused by specification changes your team made in week three.
1. How do you handle the sponsor's request to keep the status green?
Read the worked answer
I would not report green, and I would say so in the same conversation rather than in a later email.
The financial position is the deciding fact: 40% of budget consumed at 30% of schedule, with the critical path three weeks late. A green status would require me to assert that earned value is tracking plan, and I cannot defend that assertion if the board asks. If it later turns red at week twelve, the credibility loss is mine and it is unrecoverable in a way that a week-six yellow is not.
But refusing without offering something is unhelpful. I would arrive with a recovery plan and a forecast, so the sponsor is choosing between options rather than absorbing bad news: current forecast completion date, the cost of each recovery route, and the two or three decisions I need from them. Framing it as 'here is what yellow looks like and here is how it returns to green' gives them something to say to the board.
I would also be direct that this is not a reporting preference. Status is the mechanism by which the organisation allocates attention and money; shading it removes the sponsor's own ability to help.
2. What recovery options do you have, and how do you choose between them?
Read the worked answer
Three levers, and they are not equally available.
Crash - pay the vendor for expedited delivery. Fastest, but it adds cost to a project already at 40% spend for 30% progress, and a vendor that is three weeks late may not have the capacity to accelerate credibly. I would want a written recovery schedule with dates before paying anything.
Fast-track - overlap remaining integration work with vendor delivery. Attractive because much of the integration can start against a stable interface specification, but it raises rework risk precisely where the lead engineer is about to leave.
Descope - reduce scope to protect the date. Only the sponsor can authorise this, which is why it belongs in the same meeting as the status decision.
How I choose: I would first confirm the critical path is still where I think it is, because a three-week slip on a path with float is not a three-week project slip. Then I would check whether the week-three specification changes are a real cause or a convenient one - if they are real, some rework may be unavoidable and should be planned rather than absorbed by overtime. Overtime is not a recovery option; it is a cost already being paid and it has a ceiling.
3. Your lead engineer leaves in four weeks. What do you do?
Read the worked answer
This is a higher-severity risk than the vendor delay, because it is not recoverable with money alone and it sits directly on the path I am trying to compress.
First, understand the exit before designing around it. Is it a counter-offer situation, a career change, or a symptom of the month of unpaid overtime? If it is the third, the answer is not a retention bonus for one person, it is a check on how many others are about to do the same. I would look at the rest of the team's hours this week.
Second, plan the four weeks explicitly. Knowledge transfer needs a named recipient and specific artefacts, not 'document as you go' - pairing for the last two weeks, a written integration runbook, an introduction of the successor to the vendor's technical contact. I would schedule this as real work with dates, because the default is that handover gets squeezed by delivery pressure and produces nothing.
Third, update the risk register and the forecast with this in it, and tell the sponsor in the same conversation as the status. A key-person exit in four weeks is not a detail to be absorbed quietly.