Single qualified engineer reassigned at zero float
A pharmaceutical validation project is in execution. The only qualified computer-system-validation engineer, who is employed by a functional department, has been reassigned for four weeks to a regulatory audit. The validation protocol sits on the critical path with zero float, and the next stage gate is in five weeks. The engineer's manager says the audit is 'higher priority' and offers a contractor who needs three weeks of onboarding and has no experience with the system. The project budget holds a 6% contingency. The risk register already lists this as a medium risk, with a mitigation of 'cross-train a backup', but the training was postponed twice. The contractor agency can supply someone in 10 days. The steering committee is not scheduled to meet for three weeks. What do you do?
1. Assess the situation using the individual management practices for resources and risk.
Read the worked answer
Resource practice. The project depends on a single scarce competence. Resource management expects availability, competence and authority to be planned and monitored, not assumed. The reassignment removes the only qualified engineer at a zero-float point, so the resource baseline is broken. I would quantify the schedule impact, check whether any protocol work can be resequenced, and negotiate with the functional manager for a defined return date or partial availability.
Risk practice. The risk was known and the mitigation was not implemented; that changes its rating from medium to high. I would update probability, impact, owner, trigger and response. The contractor is a response, but onboarding three weeks into a five-week gate is not equivalent cover. Options include a paired contractor-plus-engineer arrangement, a short audit-support compromise, or a gate extension with sponsor approval. The decision should be made on evidence, not on who shouts 'priority' loudest.
2. What immediate actions would you take in the next 48 hours, and what would you escalate?
Read the worked answer
Next 48 hours. Confirm in writing the audit scope, duration and whether the engineer can be released for specific validation activities. Quantify the effect on the critical path and gate. Request a written priority decision from the sponsor or steering committee chair, since two managers are claiming the same resource. Start contractor onboarding immediately as a hedge, and pair the contractor with the system owner for knowledge transfer. Update the risk register and open an issue log entry. Communicate the revised forecast to affected workstreams.
Escalation. I would escalate the resource conflict and the gate risk, not the technical validation work itself. I would also propose a decision date and the consequence of missing it. Escalation is not a failure; it is the correct route when priorities conflict above the project manager's authority. I would avoid silently accepting the reassignment or assuming the team can absorb it.
3. The functional manager says the project manager should just 'work around it'. How do you respond?
Read the worked answer
Response. 'Working around it' is local optimisation that transfers risk to the gate and to operations. I would show the functional manager the critical-path data: zero float, five-week gate, three-week contractor onboarding, and the regulatory consequence of a failed or late validation. Then offer choices: return the engineer for two days a week, extend the audit support with a named backup, or accept a gate extension with sponsor approval.
Reasoning. The project manager's resource authority is often influence-based, so the aim is a documented trade-off, not a confrontation. If the manager still refuses, I would escalate the priority conflict to the sponsor and record the decision and its schedule impact. The project manager is accountable for the integrated plan, not for absorbing every functional demand. A workaround without an owner and a date is just an unmanaged risk.