An elevated corridor is being constructed to reduce traffic congestion in the capital of a particular state. You have been selected as project manager of this prestigious project on your professional competence and experience. The deadline is to complete the project in next two years by 30 June, 2021, since this project is to be inaugurated by the Chief Minister before the elections are announced in the second week of July 2021. While carrying out the surprise inspection by inspecting team, a minor crack was noticed in one of the piers of the elevated corridor possibly due to poor material used. You immediately informed the chief engineer and stopped further work. It was assessed by you that minimum three piers of the elevated corridor have to be demolished and reconstructed. But this process will delay the project minimum by four to six months. But the chief engineer overruled the observation of inspecting team on the ground that it was a minor crack which will not in any way impact the strength and durability of the bridge. He ordered you to overlook the observation of inspecting team and continue working with same speed and tempo. He informed you that the minister does not want any delay as he wants the Chief Minister to inaugurate the elevated corridor before the elections are declared. Also informed you that the contractor is far relative of the minister and he wants him to finish the project. He also gave you hint that your further promotion as additional chief engineer is under consideration with the ministry. However, you strongly felt that the minor crack in the pier of the elevated corridor will adversely affect the health and life of the bridge and therefore it will be very dangerous not to repair the elevated corridor. (a) Under the given conditions, what are the options available to you as a project manager? (b) What are the ethical dilemmas being faced by the project manager? (c) What are the professional challenges likely to be faced by the project manager and his response to overcome such challenges? (d) What can be the consequences of overlooking the observation raised by the inspecting team?

Key learnings from their answer

• ›His case studies (Q7-12) carried the copy, scoring 8.0-9.5 each versus 3.0-5.0 on the theory parts, by doing two concrete things the evaluator flagged: explicit stakeholder mapping ('very well discussed/identified') and an option-by-option Merit/Demerit table for each course of action (e.g. the Aravalli illegal-mining SP case and the mid-day-meal snake/mob-justice BDO case) -> in GS4, weight your prep and exam time toward case studies, and answer them with a structured stakeholders-then-options-then-merit/demerit format rather than a narrative.