← PMP: project decisions in a production context
24 / 25 · 60 MIN

A plan teams can execute

Connect outcome, dependencies, capacity, and authority in an executable predictive plan with explicit business and RUN commitments.

From purpose to entry condition

The fictional Vega project replaces a batch platform. The agreed outcome is reconciled positions by 06:00; installing servers is a necessary deliverable, but does not establish that outcome. At the integrated review, start by connecting each deliverable to intended use and the criteria for moving to the next activity. A completed installation may still need security acceptance before receiving test data. If that review is missing from the schedule, the installation-to-test relationship is incomplete. Record owner, duration, entry condition, and completion evidence. An approved milestone expresses a commitment; it does not automatically create the capacity or approvals needed to meet it.

Logic, duration, and availability

Use a small model before discussing schedule compression. A takes two days; then B takes five and C takes three, with independent teams; D takes two and waits for both. Without other constraints, duration is nine days: 2 + maximum(5, 3) + 2. Adding all durations gives twelve and ignores permitted parallel work. Now add a different condition: B and C exclusively require the same person. In that second model, the person needs eight days after A, and minimum duration becomes twelve. Both answers are consistent with different assumptions. Confirm resources, calendars, and dependencies before presenting the date as a commitment; arithmetic alone is not a probabilistic forecast.

Capacity and knowledge belong in the plan

A three-person team has 105 weekly hours in this scenario. RUN uses 63, absence uses 14, and knowledge transfer uses seven; these reservations do not overlap. That leaves 21 hours, not 42, for project activities. A request for 28 hours requires resolving a seven-hour gap through scope, timing, or authorized capacity. Do not assume learning fits outside working hours or that a video equals independence. Before supplier departure, have RUN execute and validate recovery in a rehearsal environment with agreed conditions and support available. Record questions and tasks still requiring assistance. This evidence informs both team readiness and the feasibility of the transition date.

Authority, versions, and communication

The integrated review also checks that documents describe the same solution. If the schedule uses architecture B while the financial forecast still uses A, individual signatures do not establish a coherent plan. Reconcile licensing, startup sequence, tests, and risks against the proposed version. Separate technical opinion from budget authorization: the architect may recommend the solution without authority to commit additional person-days. Also clarify decision communication. In an international project, “Friday at 5 p.m.” needs a date and time zone; silence is not approval when explicit response is required. The meeting summary should identify the decision, authority, conditions, owner, deadline, and acknowledgment. Escalate through agreed limits with options and the impact of delay.

# Synthetic deterministic planning model, not a production schedule
parallel = 2 + max(5, 3) + 2 # 9 days
exclusive = 2 + 5 + 3 + 2 # 12 days
project_hours = 105 - 63 - 14 - 7 # 21
gap = 28 - project_hours # 7
IN PRACTICE

Vega books configuration from 18:00 to 20:00 and testing from 20:00 to 22:00. The specialist becomes available only at 19:00. Without authorized substitution or compression, the earliest decision supported by the rehearsal is at 23:00. Present the variance and alternatives instead of retaining an infeasible time.

Common pitfalls

Adding parallel branches; overlooking exclusive resources; treating probable availability as a reservation; confusing recommendation with approval; removing learning from effort forecasts.

Related topics: Plan with real capacity · Stakeholders, mandates, and cross-team decisions · Operational exit and controlled decommissioning

Take this idea with you

An integrated plan connects outcome, logic, capacity, versions, and authority. Turn assumptions into commitments only when enough evidence exists.

Create account

Reference: PMP Examination Content Outline July 2026 · PMP ECO July 2026; BigSavant PMP 2026.7

PMP® is a registered trademark of Project Management Institute, Inc. bigsavant.com is an independent preparation platform and is not affiliated with, associated with, sponsored, authorised or endorsed by PMI. Content and questions are original, are not official exam questions, and completing our tests does not award or guarantee any certification. Names are used only to identify the subject. All other trademarks belong to their respective owners.