Certified - CompTIA Project+

Once a change has been formally approved, the work of communicating, implementing, and eventually validating that change becomes the next major focus. This phase is where strategy turns into action. It is not enough to simply note that the change is “approved” in the log—teams, systems, vendors, and stakeholders all need to move in concert. The way this process is handled determines whether the change integrates smoothly into the existing project or whether it creates confusion, disruption, or wasted effort. By approaching implementation as a coordinated, multi-step effort, the project manager ensures that the change not only fits into the current workflow but also delivers the benefits that justified its approval.
The first responsibility after approval is to communicate the decision to everyone affected. This communication is not a one-size-fits-all announcement—it must be tailored to its audience. Core team members need details about their updated assignments, deadlines, and dependencies, while senior stakeholders or clients may only require a concise summary of the decision, the rationale behind it, and the anticipated value. Timing is critical; messages sent too late can lead to teams working from outdated plans, while overly vague updates can trigger misinterpretation. Clear, targeted, and timely communication establishes a shared understanding before any work begins.
Once the change has been communicated, the project documentation must be brought in line with the new reality. This means updating the project plan, schedule, and budget to reflect the revised scope and sequence of work. Deliverable descriptions in the scope statement, task breakdowns in the work breakdown structure, and milestone charts all need to match the approved change. If the update significantly alters performance measures—such as key dates or budget thresholds—the project baselines may need to be formally reestablished so that future performance tracking is meaningful. This is also the time to ensure that any linked systems, such as portfolio dashboards or reporting tools, are updated to reflect the revised plan.
Aligning the project team is the next step. Even the smallest changes can create ripple effects across assignments, roles, or task ownership. Team members need clarity on exactly what has shifted—whether that means taking on new work, relinquishing tasks to others, or adjusting deliverables to meet a revised standard. These clarifications can be delivered through targeted briefings, updated work packages, or reference guides that show how the change impacts the sequence of activities. When alignment is handled well, the team can pivot without losing momentum; when it is neglected, productivity and morale can drop quickly.
Resource assignments may also have to be adjusted to accommodate the change. This can involve human resources, such as reassigning specialists to a new task; financial resources, such as reallocating funds from one budget line to another; or material resources, such as diverting equipment to a new workstream. Updating resource calendars and workload charts ensures that capacity is not exceeded and that critical tasks are not starved of the people or tools they require. The project manager must also confirm that these adjustments do not create bottlenecks elsewhere in the project or in other initiatives competing for the same resources.
If the change touches on vendor work or involves other third parties, those relationships must be managed with the same precision. Updated statements of work, renegotiated delivery terms, and revised integration plans may all be necessary to bring external partners in sync with the internal team. Vendors should be given the same clarity of expectations, timelines, and quality standards as internal contributors to prevent execution mismatches.
Scheduling the implementation of the change requires careful planning. In many projects, there are constraints such as peak business periods, technical blackout windows, or critical dependency milestones that make certain times more or less suitable for rolling out a change. In complex initiatives, a phased deployment or pilot rollout may be used to limit risk and test the impact before full-scale adoption. Whatever the approach, the schedule must be realistic, reviewed by those affected, and approved before work begins.
Execution of the change tasks follows the updated plan. The revised task list and dependencies are worked through systematically, with milestones tracked closely to ensure that progress remains in line with expectations. The project manager or designated change owner monitors for conflicts between workstreams, adjusting sequencing where necessary to keep the implementation on track. Continuous coordination between functional areas, technical teams, and external contributors is often essential in this stage.
While execution is underway, compliance requirements must remain front and center. Changes still need to meet all applicable industry regulations, contractual obligations, and organizational standards. Quality assurance reviews and compliance checks should be integrated into the workflow so they occur in parallel with implementation rather than after the fact. This proactive approach prevents the costly rework that can result from discovering compliance issues late in the process.
Communication during execution is just as important as communication before it begins. Project managers should provide regular updates to stakeholders, adjusting the channel and format to match the project’s governance style—stand-up meetings for Agile teams, scheduled status reports for predictive projects, or dashboard updates for distributed audiences. These updates should be transparent about progress, risks, and any deviations from the plan, and they should trigger immediate escalation when new risks or delays are detected.
Finally, monitoring the early impact of the implementation can identify potential problems before they escalate. This means tracking key metrics that are tied to the project’s updated baseline and actively seeking feedback from end users or clients who interact with the changed product or process. Early detection of issues allows for quick adjustments, reducing the likelihood that the change will introduce unintended negative effects.
Even with thorough planning, unforeseen issues can emerge. These may stem from technical incompatibilities, resource shortfalls, or unexpected interactions with other parts of the project. Each issue should be logged according to the project’s issue management protocol, prioritized, and addressed using contingency measures defined in the project plan. Resolving these issues promptly is vital to maintaining stakeholder trust and keeping the overall project timeline intact.
Validation is the final safeguard in the change process, ensuring that what was approved and planned is exactly what was delivered. This step confirms that the change aligns with updated scope requirements, meets quality expectations, and delivers the intended benefits. Skipping validation can leave gaps between what stakeholders requested and what was actually implemented, eroding trust and potentially triggering rework or additional change requests.
The validation process begins with a thorough review by the project manager to verify that deliverables match the approved documentation. This often involves structured walkthroughs, peer reviews, or technical inspections, depending on the nature of the change. The goal is to identify any deviations from the agreed specifications before the work is considered complete. Quality assurance teams or compliance officers may also participate, ensuring that industry, legal, and contractual standards are upheld.
User acceptance testing, or U A T, is a cornerstone of this phase when changes affect end-user functionality or service delivery. U A T simulates real-world usage scenarios, allowing users to confirm that the change works as intended and meets their operational needs. It typically requires formal test plans, scripts, and clearly defined acceptance criteria. Documented results from U A T provide evidence for stakeholder sign-off, which is often required before the change can be officially closed.
Gathering feedback from stakeholders is equally important. Post-implementation surveys, interviews, or review meetings help determine whether the change has delivered value from the perspective of those impacted. Positive feedback reinforces confidence in the project team’s work, while constructive criticism can highlight small adjustments that improve the outcome. Capturing this feedback in writing ensures that it becomes part of the project’s lessons learned.
Measuring post-change performance validates whether the change is delivering tangible benefits. This evaluation compares pre-change and post-change performance indicators such as process speed, error rates, cost savings, or user satisfaction scores. When results meet or exceed expectations, the change is considered successful. If the benefits fall short, the root causes should be analyzed, and corrective actions may be initiated to close the gap.
All results from validation and performance measurement must be recorded in the change log. This entry should include notes on implementation accuracy, validation activities, U A T results, stakeholder feedback, and final performance metrics. A complete and well-maintained change log supports audit compliance and serves as a reference point for future projects facing similar decisions.
Once validation is complete, the project team communicates change closure to all stakeholders. This communication confirms that all requirements were met, any residual issues are resolved or accepted, and no further action is needed. Closure updates often include a summary of lessons learned, residual risks, or process improvements identified during implementation.
A change retrospective can provide additional value by examining the entire process from approval to closure. Involving the core project team, key stakeholders, and technical contributors, the retrospective discusses what worked well and where the process could be improved. Actionable recommendations may lead to updates in change control procedures, better communication strategies, or targeted training for team members.
In some cases, even a well-executed change can introduce residual risks or unintended side effects. These may include minor process inefficiencies, new dependencies, or small but persistent technical issues. These risks must be documented, assigned to risk owners, and tracked until they are either resolved or accepted by the appropriate authority. Only when these residual concerns are addressed can the change be fully closed.
Finally, all documentation related to the change—approvals, communication records, test results, updated project artifacts—must be archived according to the organization’s data retention policies. This archive not only fulfills compliance requirements but also serves as a knowledge resource for future initiatives. Where appropriate, key lessons and updated templates should be added to the organization’s knowledge base so other project teams can benefit from the experience.
Verifying that the change met its business objective completes the validation cycle. This review considers strategic alignment, return on investment, and stakeholder satisfaction. If the change has delivered measurable value, it can be marked as a success; if it has not, the organization can investigate and address the underlying issues. This disciplined approach ensures that change control is not simply a formality, but a process that actively safeguards and enhances project outcomes.