As a project manager for a clinical testing facility, you add extra research reports to a project's deliverables even though the customer did not request or approve them. What is this behavior an example of in PMI terminology?

Introduction / Context:
In PMI based project management, it is important to distinguish between delivering exactly what has been agreed in the scope baseline and adding work that has not been requested or approved. The scenario described involves a project manager who decides to add additional research reports that the customer never asked for. This behavior is a classic example used in PMP training to illustrate an undesirable practice that can introduce risk and confusion, even if the intention is to please the customer.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The customer did not request the additional research reports.
• The project manager chose to add extra deliverables without formal change control or customer approval.
• The added work is outside the originally agreed scope baseline.
• We are working within PMI concepts that include scope creep, gold plating, and progressive elaboration.

Concept / Approach:
Gold plating occurs when the project team intentionally adds extra features, functionality, or deliverables that are not part of the approved scope, usually in an attempt to delight the customer. Scope creep, by contrast, refers to uncontrolled expansion of the project scope without formal change control, often driven by evolving customer requirements or poorly defined scope. Progressive elaboration is a planned and controlled process of continually refining and detailing requirements as more information becomes available. The key clue in this scenario is that the project manager independently decides to add work that was not requested or approved, which matches the definition of gold plating.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Identify that the extra research reports were not requested by the customer and are not part of the original scope baseline. Step 2: Notice that there is no mention of a formal change request or scope change approval process being followed. Step 3: Recall that gold plating involves intentionally adding unrequested extras, whereas scope creep typically involves uncontrolled changes requested by the customer or stakeholders. Step 4: Compare the scenario with PMI definitions and see that it exactly matches gold plating. Step 5: Choose option D, which explicitly labels this behavior as gold plating.

Verification / Alternative check:
PMP preparation materials often give examples such as adding extra features to software or including additional reports without customer request, and they label these actions as gold plating. They warn that this practice can increase cost and risk, complicate testing and support, and create unrealistic customer expectations. This matches the situation described in the question, confirming that gold plating is the correct term rather than scope creep or progressive elaboration.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A suggests that this is simply good customer service, but PMI generally discourages delivering unapproved extras because they can create scope and cost problems. Option B, scope creep, is more about uncontrolled expansion driven by customer or stakeholder changes, not voluntary additions by the project team. Option C, due diligence, refers to necessary legal or compliance work, which is not indicated here. Option E, progressive elaboration, is a controlled refinement of scope, not an arbitrary addition of deliverables without formal approval.

Common Pitfalls:
A frequent pitfall is thinking that more features always mean a happier customer and a better project, but unapproved additions can backfire if they introduce defects, delay deadlines, or create support obligations. Another mistake is confusing gold plating with scope creep because both increase work; however, gold plating is driven by the team, while scope creep is driven by uncontrolled external requests. A disciplined project manager should resist gold plating and instead use formal change control if the customer genuinely wants more deliverables.

Final Answer:
This situation is an example of gold plating, where the team intentionally adds extra features or work beyond what is specified in the scope without formal approval.