Requirements Validation

Correct Answer: Establish a meeting with the client and other key stakeholders to discuss the new requirements, understanding its impact on the project scope, time, and cost

The best approach when a significant change is brought up mid-project is to 'Establish a meeting with the client and other key stakeholders to discuss the new requirements, understanding its impact on the project scope, time, and cost'. This allows you to openly discuss the impact of the alteration and negotiate if necessary, ensuring that everyone is on the same page and understands what the change would mean for the project. The other options could be counterproductive leading to project failure. Ignoring the new requirements ('Ignore the new requirement and proceed as per the initial plan') would be ignoring the client's needs, whereas immediately incorporating them ('Immediately include the new requirement in the project without any further discussions') would risk compromising the project’s boundaries without understanding its impact. While estimating the time and cost of the new requirement before discussing with the client ('Ask the development team to estimate the time and cost for the new requirement before discussing with the client') is not entirely a wrong approach, it is typically more efficient to first understand the client’s perspective thoroughly before proceeding with estimations and potential redesign.

Correct Answer: Ask for a revised Project Charter incorporating changes

The best answer is to 'Ask for a revised Project Charter incorporating changes'. In project management, any change in requirements should be well documented and formally incorporated in the project plan. A revised project charter will ensure that everyone is aware of the changes and their implications, and that these changes have been approved and incorporated in the project's scope. The remaining responses have some key issues. First of all, ignoring the new requirements ('Ignore and follow the original requirements') has the risk of not meeting the client’s updated need. Secondly, making changes solely on verbal feedback ('Make changes based on client verbal feedback') may lead to misunderstandings and poor documentation of project requirements. Lastly, delaying the client’s request to the next project ('Ask the client to wait until the next project') may not address the client’s current needs and may lead to dissatisfaction.

Correct Answer: Conduct a facilitated workshop

The most effective method for requirements validation in a project where stakeholders have conflicting views is to conduct a facilitated workshop. This approach is superior for several reasons:

1. Direct interaction: A workshop brings all stakeholders together in one place, allowing for face-to-face communication and real-time resolution of conflicts.

2. Collaborative environment: It fosters a collaborative atmosphere where stakeholders can work together to find common ground and resolve differences.

3. Efficient use of time: Instead of multiple separate meetings, a workshop addresses all concerns in a concentrated session.

4. Holistic view: It provides a comprehensive overview of all requirements and allows for immediate clarification of misunderstandings.

5. Facilitator guidance: A neutral facilitator can manage discussions, ensure all voices are heard, and guide the group towards consensus.

The other options are less effective:

Performing a comprehensive document analysis is time-consuming and doesn't address the interpersonal aspect of conflicting views.

Executing one-on-one interviews with each stakeholder might exacerbate conflicts as it doesn't provide a platform for direct discussion between parties.

Implementing a voting system may lead to some stakeholders feeling their concerns are unaddressed, potentially causing resentment and future project issues.

A facilitated workshop is the most dynamic and interactive approach, making it ideal for resolving conflicts and validating requirements effectively.