MSP-Practitioner MSP Practitioner, 5th edition Exam Questions and Answers

The principle“Envisioning and communicating a better future”specifically addresses the need for creating a clear, compelling Vision. The MSP Practitioner states:“Envisioning and communicating a better future categorically takes the need of creating an effective Vision statement.”This principle ensures that the programme has a forward-looking, inspirational view of the outcomes and benefits, which guides all programme activities and stakeholder engagement efforts. The Vision helps to align everyone involved and drives commitment towards the desired future state.

A key attribute for the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) is having access to and credibility with key stakeholders because the SRO plays a pivotal role in stakeholder management and programme accountability. The MSP Practitioner notes,"This attribute is necessary as SRO is also involved in stakeholder management,"emphasizing that SRO’s influence and stakeholder credibility are critical to programme success.

Both the Business Change Manager (BCM) and the Programme Manager share responsibility for aligning projects with benefits realization. The MSP Practitioner highlights that“Both roles are responsible for this task as projects are overseen by programme manager, and benefits are under BCM supervision.”

The Programme Manager ensures that project outputs are delivered on time, within scope, and aligned to programme objectives, while the BCM ensures that these outputs translate into tangible benefits once transitioned into operational use.

This dual responsibility ensures seamless coordination between delivery and realization functions, bridging the gap between project outputs and strategic outcomes. Without this collaboration, there is a risk of projects delivering outputs that fail to produce the intended business improvements.

Together, the Programme Manager and BCM form a critical partnership in MSP’s approach to ensuring benefits are fully realized, tracked, and maximized throughout and beyond the programme lifecycle.

A dis-benefit is defined as a measurable decline resulting from an outcome perceived as negative. The MSP Practitioner clearly states:"Measurable decline resulting from outcome perceived as negative defines mis-benefit,"highlighting the need to manage and mitigate dis-benefits as part of benefits management to ensure overall programme success.

A Vision Statement is a succinct and compelling description of the desirable future state that the programme aims to achieve. It serves to inspire and align stakeholders around the intended outcomes and benefits. The MSP Practitioner outlines key characteristics of a Vision Statement, including that it must describe a desirable future and be concise to ensure clarity and focus.

Key benefits are often implicit within the Vision, providing a motivational overview without delving into detailed measurement or timelines.

However, the Vision Statement is NOT normally time-dependent. Time frames and milestones are introduced later in the programme planning stages, such as in the Business Case or Programme Plan. The MSP Practitioner explains:“Vision statement does not include time frames until programme is time bound in nature,”which means the Vision is more about 'what' will be achieved rather than 'when.'

This approach allows the Vision to remain stable even if timeframes or specific project plans evolve. The focus remains on the transformational goal, providing a constant reference point as the programme adapts to challenges and changes.

Therefore, including time-dependence in the Vision Statement could unnecessarily constrain the programme’s strategic focus or create misalignment if schedules shift.

Learning from Experience isnotclassified as a Governance Theme but rather a Programme Management Principle in MSP.

The MSP Practitioner clarifies:“Learning from experience is Programme management principle,”which means it influences how programmes are managed but does not constitute a governance theme.

Governance Themes focus on structural elements such as Leadership and Stakeholder Engagement, Quality Management, and Organization, which provide the framework and controls for programme delivery.

Understanding this distinction aids in correctly applying MSP components to programme design and governance structures.

The Business Change Manager (BCM) reviews the Business Case to confirm that the plans for benefits realization are sound and achievable. The BCM ensures that the expected benefits are realistic, measurable, and aligned with the organization's strategic objectives.

The MSP Practitioner states:“BCMs will review it to confirm that benefit realizations have been handled correctly.”This review helps identify risks or gaps in benefit planning early, enabling corrective actions before programme progression.

While the SRO approves the Business Case and the Programme Manager produces it, the BCM’s critical role is to validate the benefits-related aspects, ensuring the programme can deliver its expected value effectively and sustainably.

The Programme Manager holds responsibility for preparing for the next tranche in the programme lifecycle. This involves planning, coordination, and ensuring all necessary resources, approvals, and governance arrangements are in place for the tranche to proceed smoothly.

The MSP Practitioner clearly states:“Programme manager is responsible for preparing for next tranche,”highlighting the Programme Manager’s central role in tranche delivery, risk mitigation, stakeholder communication, and readiness activities.

Preparation for the next tranche includes refining project dossiers, updating the Business Case if necessary, coordinating with the Benefits Realization Manager and other roles, and ensuring that lessons learned from the previous tranche inform future work. This continuous cycle of preparation and delivery ensures programme adaptability, control, and alignment with strategic objectives.

The Programme Board provides governance and approval but delegates the operational responsibilities to the Programme Manager. The Programme Office supports through administrative functions, and the Benefits Realization Manager focuses on benefit tracking rather than tranche planning.

The POTI (Projects, Operations, Teams, and Infrastructure) model is used to define the high-level scope of the Blueprint. The Blueprint theme encompasses the detailed design and delivery aspects of the programme’s transformation. As per MSP Practitioner,"POTI defines high level scope of blueprint,"situating the model firmly within the Blueprint Design and Delivery governance theme.

All the listed groups are valid stakeholders in a city-building programme. MSP recognizes that stakeholders can be diverse, including internal groups like employees, external political leadership, and the wider community such as potential residents.

The MSP Practitioner notes:“All are valid stakeholders in programme,”emphasizing the importance of identifying and engaging a broad spectrum of stakeholders to ensure programme success.

Inclusive stakeholder management supports better decision-making, risk mitigation, and benefits realization by addressing varied needs and expectations across the stakeholder landscape.

When a viable Business Case does not emerge, seeking further funding is generallynotconsidered a normal or effective response. The MSP Practitioner explicitly states that funding should not be increased without a credible justification, as this risks wasted resources on programmes unlikely to deliver benefits.

Instead, typical responses include redesigning a less ambitious Blueprint to reduce complexity or costs, closing the programme if it is no longer viable, or exploring alternative approaches to delivering the Blueprint that might improve feasibility and value realization.

The Business Case acts as a foundational control and justification mechanism, ensuring programmes only proceed with a clear strategic rationale and realistic benefit realization plan. Continuing to invest without a strong Business Case undermines governance principles and risks programme failure.

Therefore, while redesign or closure are pragmatic approaches,“Further funding is not provided in case of inability to find a viable business case,”reinforcing MSP’s disciplined approach to investment and risk management.

Outcomes are defined as the new operational state achieved after the transition of capability into live operations. They represent the changes in the organization’s way of working resulting from the combined effect of project outputs.

The MSP Practitioner states:“Outcomes are combined outputs or projects to bring a new operational state in organization,”emphasizing that outcomes go beyond deliverables to reflect actual changes in operations and behaviours.

This distinction is critical in MSP’s focus on transformational change, ensuring programmes deliver real, sustainable benefits rather than just outputs.

Designing the Projects Dossier is a key activity in the 'Defining a Programme' process. The Projects Dossier is a comprehensive document that defines all the projects within the programme, detailing their scope, objectives, interdependencies, and delivery approach.

The MSP Practitioner states:“Only project dossier is created in defining programme from available options,”emphasizing that managing transition, producing the Programme Brief, and aligning projects with benefits realization occur in later programme stages.

Developing a well-structured Projects Dossier is critical for effective programme planning, control, and coordination of project delivery to achieve overall programme benefits.

The Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) approves the Business Case and is accountable for ensuring it remains valid and aligned with strategic objectives.

The MSP Practitioner states:“SRO approves (as he is accountable for it).”This underscores the SRO’s critical role in governing programme justification and ensuring investment decisions remain sound.

While the Sponsoring Group may endorse or sponsor the programme, formal accountability and approval for the Business Case rest with the SRO, ensuring clear responsibility for delivery against agreed benefits.

This accountability helps maintain control and confidence in programme investment and delivery.

Levels of confidentiality and information security requirements are documented in the Information Management Strategy. This strategy sets out how information will be handled throughout the programme, covering aspects such as access rights, data classification, storage, and dissemination protocols to protect sensitive information.

The MSP Practitioner specifies:“Confidentiality details are defined in Information management strategy,”indicating that this document governs the secure management of programme data and communication. It is essential that confidentiality levels are clear to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive information, which could jeopardize the programme’s success or breach legal and regulatory obligations.

While Quality Management, Resource Management, and Benefits Management Strategies address different governance aspects such as assurance, resource allocation, and benefit realization, they do not primarily deal with confidentiality.

Information management is critical for stakeholder trust, compliance with legislation (e.g., GDPR), and safeguarding intellectual property or competitive advantage. Clear documentation in the Information Management Strategy ensures that all programme participants understand their responsibilities regarding confidentiality, promoting consistent and secure handling of data.

Recruitment Policy isnotconsidered a critical organizational element in MSP, whereas Delivery Mechanism for Change, Business as Usual, and Corporate Strategy are recognized as essential elements.

The MSP Practitioner states:“All other are critical organizational elements,”highlighting that MSP focuses on how organizations govern and implement change (delivery mechanisms), maintain ongoing operations (business as usual), and set strategic direction (corporate strategy).

Recruitment policies, while important HR tools, are not part of the critical organizational elements that MSP emphasizes in programme governance and transformational change management.

Among the options, "Remaining aligned with corporate strategy" is identified as a core MSP programme management principle. The principles underpin the mindset and behaviors needed for successful programmes. Other options, like Quality and assurance management and Leadership and stakeholder management, fall under governance themes or transformational flow rather than principles.

The statement that“Programme control defines reporting mechanism”is not true. While programme control encompasses refining delivery, managing ambiguity, and justifying programme continuation, defining the reporting mechanism is typically a management or communication function rather than a control function.

The MSP Practitioner clarifies:“Programme control deals with improving delivery, reducing ambiguity & bringing certainty and justifies continuance of programme,”focusing on the governance and decision-making controls rather than specific reporting structures.

Effective programme control ensures programmes remain viable and aligned with strategic objectives through structured oversight and governance processes.

Gateway reviews are not part of delivering the capability but are governance checkpoints that occur at specific programme milestones, including the beginning of the programme, key decision points, and closure.

The MSP Practitioner explains:“Gateway reviews happen at beginning of programme, Key decision points of programme and closure of programme.”These reviews are formal assessments to validate readiness, progress, and compliance with governance before major transitions, tranche approvals, or programme closure.

Delivering the capability primarily involves initiating projects, managing their delivery under governance frameworks, and ensuring alignment between project outputs and benefit realization. Governance during delivery includes managing risks, issues, and quality controls to ensure outputs are produced to specification.

Gateway reviews are designed to provide independent assurance and decision points but are external to the ongoing activities of capability delivery. Recognizing this distinction helps maintain clarity of roles and processes within programme management, ensuring focused effort on delivery while maintaining appropriate oversight.