Controlling a Stage Process

This situation requires proper application of PRINCE2's Change theme and issue management process.

The correct approach is to document the request as an issue, assess the impact on time, cost, quality and benefits with relevant team members, then present the analysis to the Project Board with recommendations for their decision.

Here's why this is correct:

1. Proper Issue Management: The Marketing Director's request represents a potential change that needs formal assessment. In PRINCE2, changes must be captured and evaluated systematically, not acted upon immediately based on informal communications.

2. Impact Assessment: While the Marketing Director characterizes this as 'just a cosmetic change,' the Project Manager recognizes the technical reality - design elements are embedded throughout the portal's UI components. A proper impact assessment with the development team is essential to understand the true implications on time, cost, quality, and benefits.

3. Project Board Decision: This is a significant change that affects project scope, timeline (with the team currently focused on payment gateway integration), and potentially costs. The Project Board has authority over such decisions and must be informed and involved in deciding how to proceed.

4. Appropriate Escalation Level: The issue should be escalated to the Project Board (the project's decision-making authority), not beyond to corporate level, as it's primarily a project-level change requiring project-level trade-off decisions.

Why the other answers are less appropriate:

Asking the Marketing Director to present to the Project Board shifts responsibility away from the Project Manager, who owns issue management and should provide objective analysis to the Board. The Project Manager is best positioned to present the technical and project implications.

Requesting additional budget and parallel workstreams pre-empts the Project Board's decision. The Project Manager should present options and impacts, allowing the Board to decide on the appropriate response (which might include additional resources, timeline extension, scope adjustment, or other options).

Escalating to a corporate programme board is unnecessary escalation beyond the project level. While the rebranding is corporate-wide, the decision about how this specific project responds to it falls within the Project Board's remit. Only if the Project Board cannot resolve the issue or if it affects other projects would further escalation be appropriate.

The correct answer focuses on the regulatory requirement impact, corrective actions, and appropriate exception management through the management-by-exception principle.

This answer is best because:

1. Management by Exception: The Highlight Report should focus on exceptions and variances that matter to the Project Board. The regulatory requirement causing a two-week delay and £45,000 budget consumption is significant and directly addresses the Board's previously expressed concerns about regulatory compliance and budget consumption.

2. Forward-Looking Information: By emphasizing corrective actions to recover the schedule, it provides the Project Board with actionable information about how the issue is being addressed, which is more valuable than just reporting the problem.

3. Appropriate Level of Detail: It confirms that the legacy system data issues were managed within Work Package tolerances (proper delegation to Team Manager level) and doesn't unnecessarily escalate information that was handled at the appropriate management level. This demonstrates effective use of PRINCE2's management by exception principle.

4. Addresses Board Concerns: It directly responds to the Project Board's stated concerns about regulatory compliance and budget consumption, making the report relevant and valuable to their decision-making needs.

The second answer is incorrect because it provides excessive technical detail (technical specifications, comprehensive data quality metrics, complete training attendance records) which is inappropriate for a Highlight Report. The Project Board needs summary-level information focused on exceptions and decisions, not operational details.

The third answer is incorrect because it attempts to provide equal emphasis on all workstreams with detailed status updates. This violates the management by exception principle and creates information overload. The Project Board doesn't need comprehensive information about everything - they need focused information on exceptions and issues requiring their attention.

The fourth answer is incorrect because it inappropriately downplays a significant exception (the portal delay and budget consumption) while emphasizing routine successes. This fails to properly highlight the exception that needs Board attention and could be seen as attempting to hide problems. The statement about tolerance not being exceeded is also potentially misleading if stage tolerance is being approached.

The primary purpose of the Authorize Work Package activity is to provide formal delegation of work from the Project Manager to a Team Manager with agreed terms and conditions.

This is correct because in PRINCE2 7, the Authorize Work Package activity represents the formal point of delegation where the Project Manager assigns responsibility for delivering specific products to a Team Manager. This activity establishes a clear agreement on what needs to be delivered, the constraints within which the work must be performed, and the authority being delegated. It creates a formal contract-like arrangement between the Project Manager and Team Manager.

Why the other answers are less accurate:

The second option focuses on enabling work commencement and alignment with deliverable requirements. While these are certainly outcomes of authorizing a Work Package, they describe the result rather than the primary purpose. The essence of the activity is the formal delegation itself, not just enabling work to start.

The third option emphasizes establishing a reporting framework for monitoring progress. Although reporting requirements are included in a Work Package, this is a component of the authorization rather than its primary purpose. The reporting framework is part of the agreed terms and conditions, not the main reason for the activity.

The fourth option highlights resource allocation and budgetary approval. While Work Packages do include resource and budget information, this answer focuses on operational details rather than the fundamental purpose. The authorization is primarily about delegation of authority and responsibility, with resources and budget being supporting elements within that delegation framework.