High-yield CAPM® review: project management fundamentals, predictive planning artifacts, schedule and earned value formulas (PERT/EVM), agile quick reference, business analysis checklists, and a practical glossary.
Use this as your last-mile CAPM® review. Pair it with the Syllabus for coverage and Practice for speed.
For official exam details, see Overview (PMI sources linked there).
flowchart TD
A["Clarify objective + success criteria"] --> B["Identify stakeholders + constraints"]
B --> C["Choose approach (predictive / agile / hybrid)"]
C --> D["Plan work (scope / schedule / cost / risk / comms)"]
D --> E["Deliver increments + manage change"]
E --> F["Measure performance + adjust"]
F --> G["Accept + transition + close"]
F --> C
If you can state these three items from any question stem, you’re usually close to the best answer:
| Term | Meaning (concept) | Common trap |
|---|---|---|
| Deliverable | tangible output | treating it as the benefit |
| Outcome | change produced by deliverables | confusing it with activity completion |
| Benefit | value gained from outcomes | assuming benefits appear immediately |
| Risk | uncertain event/condition | treating a current problem as a “risk” |
| Issue | current problem | pretending it will “maybe” happen later |
| Assumption | believed true for planning | forgetting it must be validated |
| Constraint | hard limit | ignoring it when optimizing |
| Dependency | external/internal reliance | forgetting it drives schedule risk |
| If the question is about… | Reach for… | Why (concept) |
|---|---|---|
| authorization to start | charter (concept) | clarifies purpose + authority |
| “what is included / excluded?” | scope statement (concept) | sets boundaries |
| “how is work decomposed?” | WBS (concept) | deliverable/work package view |
| “who does what?” | responsibility assignment (concept) | clarifies ownership |
| “what could go wrong?” | risk register (concept) | capture + responses |
| “what is happening now?” | issue log (concept) | current problem tracking |
| “stakeholder comms” | communications plan (concept) | cadence + channels |
| “changes and approvals” | change log / control process (concept) | prevents scope creep |
| “proof of acceptance” | acceptance criteria + sign-off (concept) | defines done |
flowchart LR
CR["Change request"] --> IA["Impact analysis (scope/schedule/cost/risk)"]
IA --> AP{"Approve?"}
AP -->|yes| UP["Update baselines + plans"]
UP --> IM["Implement change"]
IM --> VR["Verify + validate"]
AP -->|no| BK["Backlog / defer / reject"]
Elimination rule: answers that implement a change without impact analysis/approval are often wrong (unless the scenario explicitly authorizes it).
| Type | Meaning (concept) |
|---|---|
| FS | successor starts after predecessor finishes |
| SS | successor starts after predecessor starts |
| FF | successor finishes after predecessor finishes |
| SF | successor finishes after predecessor starts |
Total float identity (concept):
\[ \text{TF}=LS-ES=LF-EF \]
Expected duration:
\[ E=\frac{O+4M+P}{6} \]
Standard deviation:
\[ \sigma=\frac{P-O}{6} \]
Exam use: pick the estimate that best reflects uncertainty and risk, not just the most optimistic number.
\[ SV=EV-PV \]
\[ CV=EV-AC \]
\[ SPI=\frac{EV}{PV} \]
\[ CPI=\frac{EV}{AC} \]
Interpretation: \(SPI<1\) suggests behind schedule (value earned vs planned). \(CPI<1\) suggests cost overrun (value earned vs spend) (concept).
\[ EAC\approx\frac{BAC}{CPI} \]
\[ ETC\approx EAC-AC \]
To-complete performance index (concept):
\[ TCPI\approx\frac{BAC-EV}{BAC-AC} \]
Exam reflex: if CPI is bad, “do more of the same” rarely fixes it—look for root cause (scope clarity, productivity, rework, estimates).
| Response | When it fits (concept) |
|---|---|
| Avoid | eliminate the cause / change plan |
| Mitigate | reduce probability/impact |
| Transfer | shift impact to a third party |
| Accept | monitor and plan contingencies |
| Response | When it fits (concept) |
|---|---|
| Exploit | make it happen |
| Enhance | increase probability/benefit |
| Share | partner to capture benefit |
| Accept | take it if it occurs |
| Contract type | Risk typically higher for… (concept) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Fixed price | seller | scope clarity matters |
| Time & materials | buyer | needs strong oversight |
| Cost reimbursable | buyer | incentives and controls matter |
| Concept | What it’s for (concept) |
|---|---|
| Product backlog | ordered work for value delivery |
| Sprint backlog | selected work + plan for sprint |
| Increment | integrated, potentially releasable output |
| Review | stakeholder feedback loop |
| Retro | process improvement loop |
| Situation | Technique (often) | Why |
|---|---|---|
| unclear needs | interview + workshop | clarify language and trade-offs |
| real workflow matters | observation | find hidden steps/constraints |
| many stakeholders | survey (concept) | scale input collection |
| high ambiguity | prototypes / examples | make assumptions visible |
Acceptance criteria prompt (concept): “What must be true for the stakeholder to accept this as done?”