Challenge Your Exam Readiness With Our Free CAPM Practice Questions

Any change to network logic—especially adding leads—can shift criticality and float across multiple paths. The CAPM scheduling objectives stress iterative network analysis: after introducing a lead or lag, re-run forward and backward passes to recompute early/late dates, total/free float, and to reveal whether parallel paths have become co-critical. Leads increase rework and quality risk because successors proceed on incomplete inputs; near-critical paths with low float deserve heightened monitoring. Option A (adding a buffer at the end) hides risk and muddles performance measurement. Option C conflates schedule buffers with cost/time reserves; reserves are part of risk planning and shouldn’t be arbitrarily increased without analysis. Option D advocates additional fast tracking before understanding the system impact of the first change. Proper practice: recompute the schedule, reassess risks (add secondary risks if needed), update the risk register, communicate implications, and only then consider further compression on the newly identified constraints. This preserves transparency, protects quality, and keeps integrated change control evidence-based.