Replied By: Jitesh

Darryl,

Looks like you have stakeholder engagement issue at hand. C and D are clearly not effective to resolve this issue so they are out.

Cause and effect diagrams (like ishikawa/fish-bone diagrams) generally identify multiple causes that would lead to an effect. Like some causes can be identified that would have led to the non-participation of some stakeholders. Whereas root cause analysis helps identify specific cuases that would have led to the non-participation of those stakeholders.

So option A here is a best choice to address the situation.

PMI has been viewing RCA as a technique. In SPM there is no mention of tool or techinque for RCA, however on page 50 of SPM 3rd Edition under 5.3 section PMI mentions, "Participation trends are analyzed, and root-cause analysis is performed to identify and address the causes of nonparticipation". Which is where the question is directly taken from.

You may get questions in real exam where tools and techniques may have interchangeably used. An RCA can be seen as a tool if specifically seen for cause analysis, or it can be seen as a technique of identifying the cause in comparison to other ways of doing so. All techniques are specific ways of doing something. Like each painter would use different techniques, though they may all use similar tools like paints and brush. Sometimes some painter may use a specific chemical paint as his technique to differentiate his painting.

Think of the RCA as a management tool that a program manager would use to reach to a specific causes leading to the specific effect that has already occured.

Overall, best approach for exam would be to rely on underlying facts and addressing the exact concerns presented. Wordings may be loosely used, like initiation phase, setup phase, formulation sub phase etc....

Regards,

Jitesh