L5M8 Practice Questions

A RACI (Responsible–Accountable–Consulted–Informed) matrix lists every project task against each stakeholder group and assigns one of the four RACI roles. By doing so it explicitly shows 1) which stakeholders must take part (Responsible or Accountable) and 2) which merely receive communications (Consulted or Informed). Hence it is the standard model for mapping stakeholder involvement and communication requirements in projects.

A. STEEPLED – Environmental scanning tool (Social, Technological, Economic, etc.); does not map individual stakeholders or communication lines.

C. Kraljic – Portfolio matrix for classifying purchased items by supply risk and impact on profit; unrelated to stakeholder communication.

D. Mendelow – Plots stakeholders by power × interest; indicates priority but not specific involvement levels or communication modes.

1. PMI, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® 6th ed.), 2017, §9.1.2.1 “Responsibility Assignment Matrix”, pp. 318-319 – explains RACI and its use to define stakeholder involvement and communications.

2. CIPS, Level 5 Advanced Diploma, Module L5M8 “Project and Change Management”, Study Guide, 2021, Learning Outcome 1, pp. 18-19 – describes the RACI matrix as a method for identifying who is involved and how to communicate with them.

3. MIT OpenCourseWare, Course 15.761 “Operations Management – Special Topics: Project Management”, Lecture Notes 6, slide 14 – illustrates RACI chart and notes its role in clarifying communication with stakeholders.

The company, Frog and Duck Ltd, is a new enterprise with few staff and informal communication. This scenario perfectly aligns with the first phase of Greiner's Model of Growth, which is the 'creative evolution' or 'Growth through Creativity'. This initial stage is characterized by being young, small, and entrepreneurial. Management is hands-on, and communication is frequent and informal. The organization's primary focus is on creating and selling its products or services, which is typical for a technology start-up. The informal structure allows for rapid innovation and response to market feedback.

A. collaboration evolution: This is the fifth and final phase in Greiner's model, focused on overcoming bureaucracy through teamwork, which is not applicable to a small start-up.

B. co-ordination evolution: This is the fourth phase, where formal systems and procedures are introduced to manage a more complex, decentralized organization.

C. directional evolution: This is the second phase, where formal structures and a clear hierarchy are established to provide direction after the initial creative phase.

1. Greiner, L. E. (1998). Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 55-67. In the description of Phase 1, Greiner states, "Communication among employees is frequent and informal." and "The organization is young [and] small." This directly supports the characteristics of Frog and Duck Ltd.

2. Daft, R. L. (2020). Organization Theory & Design (13th ed.). Cengage Learning. In Chapter 9, "Organizational Size, Life Cycle, and Decline," the entrepreneurial stage (equivalent to Greiner's creative phase) is described as having an informal, non-bureaucratic structure where the "organization is small" and focused on survival and product creation.

3. Jones, G. R. (2013). Organizational Theory, Design, and Change (7th ed.). Pearson. Chapter 10, "Organizational Life Cycle," outlines Greiner's model, describing the first stage of organizational birth as being characterized by the development of skills and competencies through creativity and an informal structure.

The statement is incorrect. In strategic management, there is a clear distinction between goals and objectives. Goals are broad, qualitative, and long-term statements that define what an organisation aims to achieve. Objectives, conversely, are the specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) actions required to meet those goals. They are tangible, quantifiable, and typically have a shorter-term focus. The question incorrectly describes goals while labelling them as objectives. Objectives provide the clarity and specific targets needed for departments and projects to execute the broader organisational strategy.

A. This is incorrect because the premise ("yes") is false. The description provided in the question misrepresents what objectives are in a strategic context.

B. This is incorrect because the premise ("yes") is false. While departments do set objectives, the definition given in the question is fundamentally flawed.

D. This is incorrect because objectives are not a "wish list." They are specific, committed, and measurable targets designed to drive action, not vague aspirations.

1. Lynch, R. (2018). Strategic Management. 8th ed. Pearson Education. In Chapter 4, "Strategic Purpose," Lynch distinguishes between general aims or goals and specific, quantified objectives that are used to measure performance against those goals. (Specifically, see section on 'Objectives' pp. 110-112).

2. Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K., Angwin, D., & Regnér, P. (2020). Exploring Strategy. 12th ed. Pearson Education. Chapter 1, "Introducing Strategy," defines objectives as "specific statements of the aims or purpose of a business over a stated period" and emphasizes their role in translating mission and goals into actionable, measurable targets. (See section 1.2.2, 'Statements of mission, vision, values and objectives').

3. University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. (2015). Mastering Strategic Management. Chapter 1, Section 1.4, "Assessing Organizational Performance." This text explicitly differentiates goals from objectives, stating, "A goal is a more general outcome you’d like to achieve... An objective is a specific, measurable action that must be completed to reach a goal." It links effective objectives to the SMART criteria.

A Gantt chart is a fundamental project management tool used for scheduling and visualizing project timelines. It is a type of bar chart where the vertical axis lists the project tasks or activities, and the horizontal axis represents time. Each activity is represented by a bar, the position and length of which correspond to the start date, duration, and end date of the activity. This structure provides a clear and immediate overview of the project's breakdown into specific activities and the time periods allocated for their completion, illustrating what needs to be done and when.

A. This describes a Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM), such as a RACI chart, which is used to clarify roles and responsibilities.

B. This is the function of a risk register or a risk management plan, which identifies potential risks and outlines mitigation strategies.

D. This relates to a project budget or a cost management plan, which tracks financial allocations and ownership, not the project schedule.

1. Project Management Institute. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th ed.). Section 6.5.3.1, Data Representation, p. 211. The guide describes bar charts (Gantt charts) as showing "activities...listed on the vertical axis and dates shown on the horizontal axis. The activity durations are shown as horizontal bars placed according to start and finish dates."

2. Maylor, H. (2010). Project Management (4th ed.). Pearson Education. In Chapter 9, "Planning the schedule," the Gantt chart is presented as a primary tool for "showing the timing of the different activities" (p. 238).

3. Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling (12th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Chapter 12, "Scheduling," explains that a Gantt chart is a graphical representation that displays "work to be accomplished on the vertical axis and the time to accomplish the work on the horizontal axis" (p. 458).

Cynicism during organisational change often arises from a lack of trust, poor communication, and a perceived disconnect between the stated goals and reality. The most effective managerial response is proactive and supportive. Allowing for upwards communication (C) enables employees to voice concerns and ask questions, which helps the manager to address misinformation and rebuild trust. Highlighting successful outcomes and key achievements (B) provides tangible proof that the change is beneficial, which can counteract negative perceptions and build momentum. Both strategies are fundamental to leading a team through a transition effectively.

A. Using disciplinary action for an attitude like cynicism is counterproductive. It would likely increase resentment and resistance rather than foster buy-in.

D. This option promotes passivity. While change does strain the Psychological Contract, a manager's actions are crucial to mitigating damage and repairing trust.

1. Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), pp. 59-67. In his 8-Step Process for Leading Change, Kotter emphasizes 'Step 4: Communicate the Vision' and 'Step 6: Generate Short-Term Wins'. Option C aligns with communicating the vision through two-way dialogue, and Option B directly reflects the principle of generating and celebrating short-term wins to build credibility and motivation.

2. Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(4), 429–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-4518-2. This study identifies that a primary antecedent of cynicism is a lack of quality information and participation. The authors note that "providing employees with timely, accurate, and useful information about the change" (p. 452) is a key mitigator. This directly supports the need for open communication (Option C).

3. Rousseau, D. M. (1996). Changing the deal while keeping the people. Academy of Management Perspectives, 10(1), 50-59. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1996.9603293221. Rousseau explains that during change, the psychological contract is often violated. However, she argues that managerial actions, such as providing clear explanations and involving employees, are critical to repairing the contract and retaining commitment. This refutes the passive stance in Option D.

Quantitative risk assessment involves assigning numerical values to the characteristics of a risk to determine its overall level. The two primary characteristics used in this calculation are the 'likelihood' (or probability) of the risk occurring and the 'severity' (or impact) of its consequences should it materialize. These are often rated on a numerical scale (e.g., 1-5) or assigned specific values (e.g., probability as a percentage, severity as a monetary value). The product of these two factors (Risk = Likelihood x Severity) provides a quantitative risk score, which is crucial for prioritizing risks for treatment and resource allocation.

B. type of risk: This is a qualitative classification (e.g., financial, operational, strategic) used for categorization, not a numerical measurement for quantitative analysis.

C. risk owner: This identifies the person or role responsible for managing the risk, which is a qualitative assignment of accountability, not a quantitative characteristic.

1. ISO 31000:2018, Risk management — Guidelines. Section 6.4.3, "Risk analysis," states that the process involves a detailed consideration of consequences (severity) and likelihood. It specifies that analysis techniques can be qualitative, semi-quantitative, or quantitative, all of which are based on these two fundamental components.

2. Hopkin, P. (2018). Fundamentals of Risk Management: Understanding, Evaluating and Implementing Effective Risk Management (5th ed.). Kogan Page. Chapter 10, "Risk Assessment Techniques," explains that quantitative risk assessment "requires a numerical estimate of both the likelihood of the risk occurring and the financial or other consequences (impact/severity) if it does occur" (p. 167).

3. Aven, T. (2016). Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Review of Recent Advances on their Foundation. European Journal of Operational Research, 253(1), 1-13. This peer-reviewed article establishes the foundational risk assessment formula as a function of probability (likelihood) and consequences (severity). It states, "The common approach to risk assessment is to use probabilities to express the uncertainties about the events and their consequences" (Section 2.1, p. 2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023

The activity described is a process evaluation. This type of evaluation focuses on how a new initiative, such as an e-sourcing tool, is being implemented and is operating in practice. Zumaya is monitoring staff usage and comparing it against initial metrics, which is characteristic of a process evaluation. This assessment is concerned with the fidelity of implementation, user engagement, and identifying any operational issues during the rollout phase, rather than just the final outcomes or financial returns. It is an ongoing activity that helps in making real-time adjustments.

A. return on investment evaluation: This is a specific financial metric to assess profitability, not the broader, ongoing operational assessment described.

B. procurement evaluation: This term is too generic. The question refers to a specific type of evaluation for a change initiative, not the entire procurement function.

D. summative evaluation: This is conducted at the end of a project to determine its overall success and impact, whereas the scenario describes continuous monitoring during use.

1. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Henry, G. T. (2019). Evaluation: A systematic approach (8th ed.). Sage publications. In Chapter 7, "Assessing and Monitoring Program Process," the authors define process monitoring (or process evaluation) as the systematic documentation of aspects of program implementation. It answers questions like "Is the program being implemented as planned?" and "Is it reaching the target population?" This aligns with Zumaya's monitoring of staff use of the new system.

2. University of Kansas. (n.d.). Community Tool Box, Chapter 36, Section 1: A Framework for Program Evaluation. Center for Community Health and Development. This resource distinguishes between evaluation types, stating, "Process evaluation determines whether program activities have been implemented as intended and resulted in certain outputs." It focuses on program operations, implementation, and service delivery, which directly matches the scenario of monitoring a new tool's usage.

3. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students (8th ed.). Pearson. Chapter 5 discusses different research and evaluation strategies. The principles of formative and process evaluation are described as being concerned with the 'how' of an intervention. This contrasts with summative evaluation, which is concerned with 'what' the outcome was. Zumaya's ongoing monitoring is clearly focused on the 'how'.

Force Field Analysis, developed by Kurt Lewin, is a change management tool used to diagnose a situation by identifying the forces that are driving change and the opposing forces that are restraining it. In Benito's case, the team lacks understanding of the motivations (driving forces) and has low morale (a restraining force). By using this tool collaboratively, Benito can visually map out the reasons for the restructure (e.g., increased efficiency, market competition) and also acknowledge the team's concerns (e.g., fear of job insecurity, difficulty with new procedures). This process fosters understanding, encourages participation, and helps the team collectively find ways to weaken the restraining forces and support the change.

A. SWOT analysis is a strategic planning tool to assess an organisation's internal strengths/weaknesses and external opportunities/threats, not for managing team dynamics during a change.

B. STEEPLE analysis is a macro-environmental scanning tool to assess external factors affecting an organisation; it is not suitable for addressing internal team morale and procedural changes.

D. Multiple Cause Diagram (or Fishbone Diagram) is a root-cause analysis tool used to identify the potential causes of a specific problem, not to explain the rationale for a strategic change.

1. Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2015). Organization development and change (10th ed.). Cengage Learning. In Chapter 2, "The Nature of Planned Change," Lewin's model is discussed, highlighting Force Field Analysis as a method to "diagnose the equilibrium by identifying the driving and restraining forces" (p. 31) to manage the change process effectively.

2. Burnes, B. (2020). The Origins of Lewin’s Three-Step Model of Change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(1), 32-59. This article reviews Lewin's work, explaining that Force Field Analysis is fundamental to his model. It is described as a framework for "identifying and evaluating all the forces that are promoting or hindering a particular change" (p. 45), making it ideal for helping a team understand the context of a change initiative.

3. CIPS (Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply). (2019). Managing Ethical and Responsible Sourcing (L5M8 Course Book). Profex Publishing. Chapter 4, 'Managing change in the supply chain,' details various change management models. It presents Force Field Analysis as a practical tool for identifying barriers and enablers of change, which is essential for gaining team buy-in and addressing resistance, as faced by Benito.

'Resource allocation syndrome' describes a common dysfunction in multi-project environments where an organization has too many active projects relative to its available resources. The root cause is this fundamental imbalance, which forces key resources to be spread thinly across multiple projects. This leads to constant multitasking, priority shifts, and delays as projects compete for the same limited pool of people, equipment, or facilities. Consequently, no single project receives the focused attention required for efficient completion, resulting in overall organizational inefficiency and project gridlock.

B. resources are underused

This is the opposite of the condition. The syndrome is characterized by the over-commitment and contention for resources, not their under-utilisation.

C. team members do not wish to finish projects

This describes a motivational or behavioural issue. The syndrome is a systemic problem rooted in organisational planning and portfolio management, not individual willingness.

D. lack of funding for projects

While funding secures resources, the syndrome is about the mismanagement of available resources across too many concurrent projects, not necessarily a lack of money.

1. Engwall, M., & Jerbrant, A. (2003). The resource allocation syndrome: the prime challenge of multi-project management? International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), pp. 403-409. The paper defines the syndrome as "a situation where there is an imbalance between the number of projects in a firm and its available resources to perform these projects." (Abstract, p. 403). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00113-800113-8)

2. Goldratt, E. M. (1997). Critical Chain. The North River Press. This foundational text explains the negative effects of multitasking in multi-project environments, which is a primary symptom of the resource allocation syndrome. It argues that attempting to advance all projects simultaneously with limited resources is a core cause of project delays (Chapters 1-4).

3. Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Mantel Jr, S. J., & Sutton, M. M. (2017). Project Management: A Managerial Approach. 10th ed. John Wiley & Sons. Chapter 7, "Resource Allocation," discusses the problems of resource loading and leveling, highlighting that when resource demands from multiple projects exceed availability, conflicts and delays are inevitable.

This question refers to Larry Greiner's model of organisational growth. The stage described is the 'collaboration evolution' (Phase 5). This phase directly follows the 'co-ordination' phase, which often culminates in a 'crisis of red tape' or excessive bureaucracy. To overcome this rigidity, the organisation moves into a collaborative phase, which is characterised by breaking down formal structures, fostering greater spontaneity in management action through teams and task forces, and using matrix structures to improve interpersonal communication and problem-solving across functional lines.

A. direction evolution: This is an earlier stage (Phase 2) where formal structures and direction are imposed to manage growth after the initial creative phase; it does not overcome bureaucracy.

C. co-ordination evolution: This stage (Phase 4) is responsible for creating the bureaucracy and 'red tape' through the implementation of formal systems, not overcoming it.

D. creative evolution: This is the first, entrepreneurial stage (Phase 1) of an organisation's life, characterised by informality and a lack of the bureaucratic structures mentioned.

---

1. Greiner, L. E. (1998). Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 55–68. (Reprint of original 1972 article). In this seminal work, Greiner describes Phase 5, "Growth through Collaboration," as the solution to the "crisis of red tape" from Phase 4. He states, "The focus is on solving problems quickly through teams... Matrix-type structures are frequently used..." (p. 64).

2. Daft, R. L. (2020). Organization Theory & Design (13th ed.). Cengage Learning. In Chapter 9, "Organizational Size, Life Cycle, and Decline," Daft explains Greiner's model. He describes the transition from the Formalization Stage (Greiner's Coordination) with its crisis of "too much red tape" to the Collaboration Stage, which involves "overcoming the red tape crisis" through "teamwork," "interpersonal skills," and "matrix structures" (pp. 348-350).

3. Scott, M., & Bruce, R. (1987). Five stages of growth in small business. Long Range Planning, 20(3), 45-52. This article builds on Greiner's work, confirming that the stage following a crisis of bureaucracy involves a move towards more collaborative and less formal structures to regain flexibility. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(87)90071-9).