Project Execution
Domain 3: Project Execution
This domain tests the work of directing and managing project work: authorizing work, developing the team, assuring quality, engaging stakeholders, managing sellers, and handling change requests and issues as they arise. Questions often present a people or delivery problem and ask for the next best action.
Core rules and concepts
- Execution processes carry out the project management plan. Work should be authorized through a work authorization system so that assignments, timing, and dependencies are controlled.
- Quality assurance is the execution process that audits processes and builds confidence that requirements will be met. Quality control, in monitoring and control, inspects outputs for defects. Do not merge the two.
- Team development follows stages: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. The project manager adapts style: directing early, coaching through conflict, delegating when capable.
- A RACI matrix clarifies who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed. Only one person should be accountable for a deliverable.
- Communication channels grow as n(n-1)/2 for n stakeholders. Adding stakeholders increases complexity, so the communication plan must set frequency, format, and owner.
- Sellers are managed through contracts: verify deliverables against agreed acceptance criteria, track performance, and route changes through contract change control.
- Change requests may arise from any execution issue. Log, assess impact on scope, schedule, cost, quality, and risk, then submit to the change control process before implementing.
- The issue log records owners, status, and resolution. Conflicts should be addressed early and directly; avoidance usually lets the issue grow.
Worked example
Two developers disagree about an API design, and one has stopped attending stand-ups. The project manager first meets both privately to understand the technical and interpersonal issues, then facilitates a design decision using the agreed architecture principles and a RACI that names one accountable owner. Because the delay threatens a critical-path integration, the project manager logs the issue, assesses schedule impact, and escalates to the technical lead only if the team cannot decide within the agreed timebox. The project manager does not impose a solution without technical input, and does not ignore the behavior because it affects team performance.
Traps that cost marks
- Gold plating: adding unrequested features because they seem valuable. This is scope creep without approval.
- Treating quality assurance as final inspection; assurance is process-focused and preventive.
- Resolving conflict by avoidance or by forcing a decision without facts.
- Accepting verbal changes and implementing them before impact analysis and approval.
- Updating the issue log only at closure instead of tracking it during execution.
- Confusing stakeholder engagement (building commitment) with one-way communication.