During execution of a predictive project, a business analyst begins adding small, unrequested enhancements to a deliverable because they seem beneficial, and these additions were never submitted as change requests. The project manager notices the delivered work is drifting beyond the approved scope baseline. What should the project manager do to address this situation?
- ARun the Validate Scope process with the customer to formally accept the enhanced deliverable as it now stands.
- BUpdate the scope baseline to include the enhancements so the delivered work and the baseline agree.
- CDirect the analyst to keep the enhancements and note them in the lessons learned register for future reference.
- DPerform the Control Scope process to compare the work against the scope baseline and manage any variance through integrated change control. Correct
Why A is wrong: Seeking formal acceptance sounds like closure, but Validate Scope confirms completed deliverables against agreed scope and should not be used to bless work that bypassed change control, so it does not address the creep.
Why B is wrong: Amending the baseline to match the work seems to restore alignment, but changing the baseline without an approved change request rewards the bypass and defeats the purpose of the baseline as a controlled reference.
Why C is wrong: Recording a lesson is worthwhile later, but silently keeping unapproved additions leaves the scope out of control now and skips the required step of assessing the variance against the baseline.
Why D is correct: Uncontrolled additions are scope creep, and Control Scope is the process that monitors the status of scope against the baseline and routes any needed adjustments through integrated change control, which is the disciplined response here.