High-yield PMP® review: leadership and stakeholder decision patterns, predictive/agile/hybrid tailoring, key artifacts, schedule and earned value formulas, risk and procurement tables, and a practical glossary.
Use this as your last-mile PMP® review. Pair it with the Syllabus for coverage and Practice for speed.
For exam format and official policy details, see Overview.
flowchart TD
A["Clarify objective + success criteria"] --> B["Identify stakeholders + constraints"]
B --> C["Tailor approach (predictive / agile / hybrid)"]
C --> D["Plan (scope / schedule / cost / risk / comms / quality)"]
D --> E["Deliver increments + manage change"]
E --> F["Measure performance + address issues/risks"]
F --> G["Accept + transition + close"]
F --> C
If you can state these three items from any question stem, you’re usually close to the best answer:
| Situation | Typical fit | Why (concept) |
|---|---|---|
| Requirements stable, compliance heavy, fixed scope | Predictive / plan-based | upfront baselines + formal control |
| High uncertainty, learning-driven, fast feedback | Agile / adaptive | frequent inspection + adaptation |
| Parts stable, parts uncertain | Hybrid | govern stable pieces; iterate where learning is needed |
Best-answer pattern: choose the approach that reduces risk fastest and fits constraints (regulatory, stakeholder tolerance, vendor contracts, operational readiness).
| Style | When it fits | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Collaborate (win-win) | complex issues, relationship matters | slower |
| Compromise (split) | time-boxed decisions, equal power | mediocre outcomes |
| Smooth/Accommodate | preserving harmony on low-stakes items | resentment if overused |
| Force/Direct | emergencies, safety/compliance, clear authority | damages trust |
| Withdraw/Avoid | not the right time, need more data | delays decisions |
| Team state | Better approach | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| New / unclear | more directive | clarify goals, roles, next steps |
| Developing | coaching | feedback + skill building |
| Performing | supporting/delegating | empower decisions, remove blockers |
| If the question is about… | Reach for… | Why (concept) |
|---|---|---|
| authorization / authority | charter (concept) | establishes legitimacy and PM authority |
| included/excluded work | scope statement / backlog boundaries | prevents uncontrolled expansion |
| decomposition | WBS / backlog breakdown | makes work plan-able |
| ownership | RACI / role clarity | reduces ambiguity |
| what could go wrong | risk register (concept) | proactive responses |
| current problem | issue log (concept) | tracked to closure |
| stakeholder alignment | engagement plan | intent + cadence |
| approvals and control | governance + change process | prevents chaos |
| acceptance | acceptance criteria + sign-off | defines done |
flowchart LR
CR["Change request"] --> IA["Impact analysis (scope/schedule/cost/risk/benefits)"]
IA --> AP{"Approve?"}
AP -->|yes| UP["Update baselines + plans"]
UP --> IM["Implement change"]
IM --> VR["Verify + validate"]
AP -->|no| BK["Backlog / defer / reject"]
Hybrid note: even in agile contexts, some changes still require governance (compliance, budget, vendor scope, major architectural decisions).
| Type | Meaning |
|---|---|
| FS | successor starts after predecessor finishes |
| SS | successor starts after predecessor starts |
| FF | successor finishes after predecessor finishes |
| SF | successor finishes after predecessor starts |
\[ \text{TF}=LS-ES=LF-EF \]
\[ E=\frac{O+4M+P}{6} \]
\[ \sigma=\frac{P-O}{6} \]
| Technique | What it does | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Fast tracking | overlap work | more rework/coordination risk |
| Crashing | add resources | cost increase; diminishing returns |
Core variables (concept):
Variances:
\[ SV=EV-PV \]
\[ CV=EV-AC \]
Indices:
\[ SPI=\frac{EV}{PV} \]
\[ CPI=\frac{EV}{AC} \]
Quick interpretation:
Common forecasts (concept):
\[ EAC\approx\frac{BAC}{CPI} \]
\[ ETC\approx EAC-AC \]
\[ TCPI\approx\frac{BAC-EV}{BAC-AC} \]
Exam reflex: the math is rarely the finish line—choose an action that addresses root cause (scope clarity, productivity, rework, estimates, impediments).
Threat responses (concept): avoid, mitigate, transfer, accept
Opportunity responses (concept): exploit, enhance, share, accept
Risk-first question pattern:
| Type | Examples | Risk holder (typical) |
|---|---|---|
| Fixed price | FFP, FPIF | seller carries cost risk |
| Time & materials | T&M | buyer carries cost risk |
| Cost reimbursable | CPFF, CPIF, CPAF | buyer carries most cost risk |
Best-answer pattern: pick the contract type that matches requirements certainty and the ability to define scope precisely.
| Element | What it does |
|---|---|
| Product backlog | ordered work/options |
| Sprint backlog | selected work for the iteration |
| Increment | potentially shippable result |
| Definition of Done | quality/acceptance bar |
| Sprint planning / review / retro | plan → inspect outcome → improve system |
| Term | Meaning (concept) | Common trap |
|---|---|---|
| Deliverable | tangible output | treating it as the benefit |
| Outcome | change produced by deliverables | confusing it with activity completion |
| Benefit | value gained from outcomes | assuming benefits appear immediately |
| Risk | uncertain event/condition | treating a current problem as a “risk” |
| Issue | current problem | pretending it will “maybe” happen later |
| Assumption | believed true for planning | forgetting it must be validated |
| Constraint | hard limit | ignoring it when optimizing |
| Baseline | approved plan for comparison | changing it informally |
| Backlog | ordered work options | treating it as a fixed scope contract |
| Increment | usable slice of product | shipping without validation |
| WIP | work in progress | starting more instead of finishing |
| Governance | decision rights + controls | confusing it with bureaucracy |