PMI-RMP Exam Dumps - PMI Risk Management Professional (PMI-RMP) Exam

The correct answer is B. The new technology ' s impact on existing controls.

The scenario explains that a major technological change was introduced as part of a risk response, and that this change later caused GPS errors for customers. It also states that the issue had been recognized as high risk and that secondary risk identification was required but never completed . This means the missing step was evaluating how the new solution could affect the existing system, controls, or operating environment. In other words, the project failed to identify and assess the impact of the new technology on existing controls and related processes.

Secondary risks often arise when a response action, design change, or technology update introduces new vulnerabilities or weakens current safeguards. Proper identification would have examined how the update might interfere with accuracy, compatibility, validation, deployment controls, or downstream system performance.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. The identification of the business driver. The business reason for making the update is not the key issue. The problem was not lack of purpose, but failure to identify and assess the new risk introduced by the technological change.

C. The risk management strategy quality assurance. This is too broad and indirect. The scenario points more specifically to missed secondary risk identification associated with the implemented change.

D. Project environmental factors. Environmental factors may influence risk, but the question specifically points to a missed evaluation related to the technology update itself and the need for secondary risk identification.

Best-practice reasoning:

When implementing risk responses involving significant technological change, the risk manager must assess how the new change affects existing controls, processes, interfaces, and users. Failure to do so can allow secondary risks to emerge and affect customers or operations.

Reference-aligned basis:

This answer is consistent with standard risk management guidance that emphasizes:

risk responses may introduce secondary risks,

major changes should be assessed for impacts on existing controls and systems,

secondary risks must be identified and managed as part of ongoing risk monitoring and response implementation.

Increasing variances during the execution phase imply that the uncertainty and risk are increasing, as the project performance is deviating from the planned values.

According to the PMBOK® Guide – Sixth Edition1, variance analysis is a technique used to compare the actual performance of the project against the planned or expected performance. It can be applied to various aspects of the project, such as scope, schedule, cost, quality, and risk. Variance analysis can help identify deviations from the baseline and determine the causes and impacts of those deviations. If the variances are shown as increasing, it means that the actual performance is deviating more and more from the planned performance, which implies that the uncertainty and risk are increasing. This could affect the project objectives and deliverables, and require corrective or preventive actions to bring the project back on track. The other options are not correct, as they are either too specific (B and D) or contradictory © to the result of the variance analysis. References: PMBOK® Guide – Sixth Edition, pages 262-263.

According to the PMI Risk Management Professional (PMI-RMP)® Handbook1, one of the domains of the PMI-RMP exam is Risk Monitoring and Reporting, which involves tracking identified risks, monitoring residual risks, identifying new risks, executing risk response plans, and evaluating risk process effectiveness throughout the project1. The risk manager of the related project should have reformed the risk monitoring and closing process properly to ensure that the contingency budget is only used for the intended risks and not for other purposes. The risk manager should have also communicated the status and outcomes of the risk activities to the relevant stakeholders, such as the functional manager and the CEO, to avoid any confusion or conflict over the budget allocation1. References: 1: PMI Risk Management Professional (PMI-RMP)® Handbook, page 6.

The risk manager should have ensured a more accurate project work plan and budget to prevent the functional manager from requesting to use the project ' s contingency budget. A well-planned budget would have avoided the shortage in the functional manager ' s department budget.

An Ishikawa diagram (also known as a fishbone or cause-and-effect diagram) is a tool used to identify and analyze the root causes and sources of a risk. It helps the risk manager gain a deeper understanding of the risk source and likelihood. (Reference: PMBOK Guide, 6th Edition, p. 139)

 An Ishikawa diagram, also known as a fishbone diagram or a cause-and-effect diagram, is a tool that can help the risk manager to analyze the root causes of a risk and to identify the factors that influence its occurrence and impact. An Ishikawa diagram can also help to visualize the relationships among different causes and to prioritize the most significant ones. By developing and employing an Ishikawa diagram, the risk manager can gain a deeper understanding of the source and likelihood of the risk and plan appropriate responses accordingly. References: The Standard for Risk Management in Portfolios, Programs, and Projects, page 72; PMBOK Guide, 6th edition, page 398.

Best practice requires immediate assessment and updating of risk-related documents as soon as new risks or issues are identified. This includes working with the technical team to understand the impact, updating the risk register and project schedule, and communicating with stakeholders.

" When new risks or issues arise, project documents such as the risk register, schedule, and stakeholder communications should be updated promptly to ensure that stakeholders are informed and risk responses are integrated into project planning. "

— PMBOK® Guide, 6th Edition, Section 11.7 (Monitor Risks: Work Performance Information and Updates)

This keeps the project adaptive and transparent.