Exam PMP topic 1 question 447 discussion

It is difficult for me to select this options.... option B

B. Negotiate a contract and form a partnership with a local authority for medical and security support services. Option C dont make sense.

Its B. How training will help you?

C is the PMP way, follow processes and C could have included B as part of risk management.

C. Perform a retrospective and update the risk register and resource management plan regarding the necessary budget for training

need for safety training and support. Not B period!

B. Negotiate a contract and form a partnership with a local authority for medical and security support services. Given the dangerous location and high-level risks involved, partnering with local authorities and organizations that specialize in medical and security support services is a prudent approach. This will help ensure the safety and health of employees working in the area and provide them with the necessary support in case of emergencies or health issues. It's a proactive way to mitigate risks and protect the well-being of project personnel. Additionally, this approach may also involve training and support services related to safety and health factors.

B IS WRONG AND NON-SENSE. SUPPOSED TO BE C. WHY WOULD YOU PURCHASE MEDICAL AND SUPPORT SERVICES? IT'S NOT ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM. WHAT B IS SAYING "LET THE ACCIDENTS HAPPEN. LET'S JUST HEAL THEM IF IT HAPPENS" PLEASE STOP USING CHATGPT TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS. USE COMMON SENSE FIRST PLEASE.

In my opinion, the correct answer is B. Since there is a high-risk involved regarding safety, the best approach is to transfer the risk to the local authority.

C. Perform a retrospective and update the risk register and resource management plan regarding the necessary budget for training

I would go with C. First, the PM needs to update the risk register and work out the response strategy.

Per chatgpt: "Given the dangerous location and high-level risks involved, the best way for the project manager to handle this situation would be to select option B: Negotiate a contract and form a partnership with a local authority for medical and security support services. Forming a partnership with a local authority will provide access to expertise and resources specific to the project location. The local authority can offer valuable insights into the safety and health factors that need to be considered, as well as provide support services such as medical assistance and security measures. While the other options may also be beneficial, such as allocating part of the project's contingency reserves for training (option A) or performing a retrospective and updating the risk register and resource management plan (option C), forming a partnership with a local authority is a proactive approach that ensures ongoing support and guidance throughout the project."

C is the most logical approach, the project is ongoing

I think B is the correct answer. Approaching it through process of elimination, D appears to be 100% incorrect, C is incorrect because it is not a retrospective action to be taken at the beginning stage of a project that has been awarded. Regarding A, I believe it is incorrect because the situation presented in the question does not seem to be an emergency situation, and using contingency reserves would not be appropriate. With only B remaining as the option, although there is some doubt about whether it aligns with the role of a PM, I have selected B.

B is good ,but it is not PM's duty, PM do A ,and procure department will do B.

B. Negotiate a contract and form a partnership with a local authority for medical and security support services This option would be the most effective and efficient approach to managing the risks associated with the dangerous location. By partnering with a local authority, the project can leverage their expertise in the area, and access the necessary medical and security support services, including employee training on major safety and health factors. The local authority would have a better understanding of the risks associated with the location and be better equipped to provide the necessary support to ensure the safety of the project team.

But why a retrospective? The project hasn't even begun