PMP Practice Questions #147
In an Agile project, at the conclusion of a sprint, you face a challenge where the product owner expresses dissatisfaction with the delivered increment, stating it does not fully meet their expectations. As the project manager aiming to enhance future sprint outcomes, which of the following actions would be most effective in preventing a recurrence of this issue and ensuring broader project alignment?
A) Schedule a sprint review meeting immediately following the sprint to discuss the delivered increment with the product owner and gather detailed feedback.
B) Introduce more detailed upfront planning and documentation at the beginning of each sprint to avoid such misunderstandings in the future.
C) Conduct a sprint retrospective with the team and include the product owner to collaboratively identify and implement improvements in understanding and meeting the product owner’s expectations across various project aspects.
D)Ensure that there is a shared and clearly defined understanding of the ‘Definition of Done’ between the team and the product owner before commencing the next sprint.
Analysis
The scenario involves a common challenge in Agile project management: the product owner is dissatisfied with the sprint outcome, feeling that the delivered increment did not meet their expectations. The project manager needs to identify an effective action that will prevent such issues in future sprints and ensure alignment with the product owner’s expectations. This requires a solution that addresses communication, understanding, and process improvements directly linked to the Agile approach.
Analysis of Options:
Option A: Schedule a sprint review meeting immediately following the sprint to discuss the delivered increment with the product owner and gather detailed feedback. This option involves conducting a sprint review meeting, a standard Agile practice that primarily assesses the sprint’s deliverables. The focus here is to evaluate what has been produced during the sprint and gather feedback from the product owner and other stakeholders. However, while this meeting is effective for reviewing outcomes and collecting immediate reactions, it is not designed to delve deeply into or solve the underlying causes of dissatisfaction. Therefore, it helps in assessing delivered work but does not necessarily facilitate proactive improvements needed to address issues before they recur.
Option B: Introduce more detailed upfront planning and documentation at the beginning of each sprint to avoid such misunderstandings in the future. This option recommends implementing more detailed planning and increased documentation at the start of each sprint to prevent future misunderstandings. While detailed documentation can appear as a solution, it often contradicts core Agile principles that prioritize flexibility and adaptability. Over-emphasizing upfront planning can hinder the agility by reducing its responsiveness and may not directly solve the fundamental communication challenges between the team and the product owner. Thus, while it aims to enhance clarity, this approach could inadvertently slow down project momentum and may not fully address the root communication issues.
Option C: Conduct a sprint retrospective with the team and include the product owner to collaboratively identify and implement improvements in understanding and meeting the product owner’s expectations across various project aspects. A sprint retrospective is an essential Agile ceremony designed for the team to reflect on their processes and improve them for future sprints. Including the product owner in this retrospective ensures that their perspective directly influences the adjustments made to the team’s working methods and their understanding of the requirements. This is a comprehensive approach that not only aims to resolve past issues but also proactively enhances future interactions and outcomes.
Option D: Ensure that there is a shared and clearly defined understanding of the ‘Definition of Done’ between the team and the product owner before commencing the next sprint. This option focuses on clarifying and agreeing on the ‘Definition of Done’, which is crucial for setting clear expectations. However, while this is an important step, it might not comprehensively address all aspects of misunderstanding or misalignment that could exist beyond the scope of defined completion criteria
Conclusion: Option C is the most effective choice for addressing the dissatisfaction of the product owner and preventing similar issues in future sprints. By conducting a sprint retrospective that includes the product owner, the team can collaboratively analyze and understand what went wrong and what can be improved. This approach not only helps in resolving specific issues but also enhances the overall process and alignment within the team. Thus, Option C offers the most comprehensive solution to the problem described in the scenario.
However, if Option C is not available in question, Option D becomes the next best choice. It doesn’t provide as complete a solution as Option C, but it can significantly help in aligning expectations and clarifying deliverable standards, which are often sources of dissatisfaction. In an exam setting or practical scenario, it’s crucial to evaluate all available options and choose the most effective one based on the given context. If broader collaborative measures like retrospectives are not possible, defining clear criteria such as the ‘Definition of Done’ becomes essential.
PMP Exam Content Outline Mapping
| Domain | Task |
|---|---|
| Process | Task 8: Plan and manage scope |
Topics Covered
- Agile Ways of Working
- Sprint/Iteratitve Retrospective
- Sprint/Iteratitve Review
