AgilePM-Foundation Sample Questions Answers

AgilePM’s MoSCoW guidance sets effort-based guardrails, not simple counts of requirements. A common rule of thumb is: Must Haves ≤ ~60% of available effort, Should Haves ≤ ~20%, and Could Haves ≤ ~20%, with Won’t Haves excluded from the current delivery timeframe. This ensures sufficient contingency (mainly in Coulds) to absorb change while protecting time, cost, and quality. Statement 2 aligns with that guidance: allocating around 20% of the available effort to Could requirements provides the “give” needed inside timeboxes and releases. Statement 1 is misstated: it refers to the number of requirements and equates the Minimum Usable Subset with a percentage of items; AgilePM speaks in terms of effort, not item count. Hence, only statement 2 is true.

The Project Manager is responsible for the delivery of the project from Foundations through to Deployment1. This role involves high-level coordination of the project, ensuring that both business and technical delivery aspects are managed effectively from the initial phases through to the final deployment1.

Statement 1: Correct. Actively responding to contributions fosters a sense of inclusion and appreciation, which is crucial for engagement and trust during change.

Statement 2: Incorrect. Decisions during change often involve emotional as well as rational considerations, as people’s behaviors and attitudes are not purely logical.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Engaging Stakeholders Emotionally: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.

The application of Principle 8, Demonstrate Control, is collectively applied by the whole team4. This principle ensures that there are proper levels of planning, progress measurement, and reporting in place.

The DSDM process can indeed be configured and calibrated to cater for a range of projects, from those requiring light governance to those needing stronger governance1. This flexibility allows the DSDM process to be tailored to the specific needs of the project, ensuring that the right balance between control and agility is achieved1.

Instrumental Success Factors (ISFs) in DSDM are crucial as they position projects for a successful outcome. ISFs are the critical elements that must be in place for a DSDM project to succeed. They provide a foundation for effective project management and delivery, ensuring that all necessary conditions are met to support the project's objectives and deliverables.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (concise, policy-compliant):

Scrum rests on empiricism and lean thinking. Empiricism means knowledge comes from experience and evidence, and decisions are made based on what is observed. Scrum implements empiricism through iterative and incremental delivery: short Sprints create frequent opportunities to inspect a usable Increment and adapt the plan based on real results rather than speculation. Iteration reduces risk by enabling rapid learning, early validation of assumptions, and continuous refinement of the Product Backlog. Evidence-based decision-making is reinforced by transparent artifacts (Product Backlog, Sprint Backlog, Increment), a clear Definition of Done, and regular inspection points (Daily Scrum, Sprint Review, Sprint Retrospective). Together, these ensure that planning and prioritization are continuously informed by what has actually been delivered and learned. Therefore, both statements—Scrum is iterative and decisions are evidence-based—are true.

In Agile Project Management (AgilePM/DSDM), the control philosophy recognizes that you cannot fix time, cost, quality, and features simultaneously. Governance is achieved by fixing time and cost (and protecting quality through standards and the Definition of Done) while flexing scope using MoSCoW prioritization. This ensures predictability of delivery cadence and budget, while allowing the team to vary the amount of functionality delivered to meet the agreed constraints. Hence, some contingency must exist in at least one of the four variables—most commonly features—so that the project can respond to emerging information without compromising delivery dates or overspending. The AgilePM Handbook explicitly states: “It is unrealistic to expect all four… can be fixed and controlled… allow flexibility in at least one.” This approach enables incremental delivery, continuous negotiation of scope, and controlled change, ensuring that value is maximized within the agreed time and cost boundaries while maintaining quality. Therefore, the correct completion is “at least one of these variables.”

Comprehensive and Detailed 150–300 words Explanation (paraphrased from Agile Manifesto principles; exact long extracts cannot be provided due to content limits):

The Agile Manifesto values “customer collaboration over contract negotiation.” This does not reject contracts, nor does it insist they be minimized or standardized; it emphasizes that collaboration is usually a more effective driver of value than rigid reliance on contractual terms. In many environments—regulated sectors, outsourced development, or vendor relationships—contracts are necessary and useful. Agile guidance encourages shaping agreements to enable adaptability: focusing on outcomes, shared goals, transparency, and mechanisms for change, rather than locking down detailed scope up front. By recognizing the value of contractual agreements—while prioritizing collaborative behaviors, frequent inspection, and incremental delivery—organizations can balance governance with agility. The practical implication is to design contracts that support iterative delivery, evolving requirements (e.g., via prioritized backlogs), and joint decision-making, rather than treating the contract as the sole arbiter of success. Hence, the statement that most accurately reflects Agile’s stance is that contractual agreements should be considered for their value (option C), with collaboration taking precedence in day-to-day delivery and problem-solving.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (paraphrased from AgilePM governance guidance):

AgilePM’s financial governance relies on artifacts that demonstrate continuing business justification, predictable control, and informed decision-making. Core project artifacts include the Feasibility Assessment (early viability and value assessment), the Foundations Summary (establishes the Business Case, scope, approach, plans, and controls), and the Project Review Report (evidence-based assessments of progress, benefits, and risks). These directly support budget stewardship, investment decisions, and release planning. A Sprint Review Record is a Scrum team-level event output focused on inspecting increments and adapting the Product Backlog; it is not a defined AgilePM project artifact nor specifically a financial governance instrument. While insights from reviews inform governance, the formal artifacts tied to AgilePM’s project-level financial control are exemplified by options A, C, and D—hence B is the correct “NOT” choice.

The Product Owner is value steward and single ordering voice for the product backlog. Their accountability is to maximize value from the team’s work by clarifying outcomes, ordering backlog items, and ensuring transparency of goals, acceptance criteria, and readiness. They continuously engage customers and stakeholders, translate learning into backlog adjustments, and make scope trade-offs that protect time, cost, and quality. The Product Owner does not approve technical fitness (that sits with technical leadership and agreed quality criteria) nor manage a baselined delivery plan in a command-and-control sense; plans are living forecasts shaped by empirical evidence. Team effectiveness coaching belongs to the Scrum Master. By holding outcome accountability while collaborating closely with delivery and business roles, the Product Owner ensures increments align to strategy, benefits, and the evolving Business Case—precisely what option B states.

DSDM differs from most other Agile approaches because it focuses on the entire project lifecycle456. This includes pre-project, feasibility, foundations, development, and deployment phases, ensuring a comprehensive approach to project management.

 Quality during Evolutionary Development is ensured by continuous verification2. This involves iterative development, where all development processes, including testing, are repeated to ensure the output is complete and able to generate useful feedback2.

Statement 1: Incorrect. Communication plans should be tailored to the specific context of each change initiative, as a one-size-fits-all approach does not work.

Statement 2: Correct. The scale and complexity of change will dictate the content and level of detail in the communication plan.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Tailored Communication Plans: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.

When using the Iterative Development technique, each cycle should include Thought, Action, and Control. These components ensure that the development process is systematic and reflective. Thought involves planning and considering the next steps, Action is the implementation of those plans, and Control is the evaluation and adjustment based on feedback and results. This iterative cycle helps in refining the product incrementally and ensures continuous improvement.

When information changes frequently, agile favors high-bandwidth, synchronous communication (e.g., video/teleconferences, facilitated sessions) that enables rapid clarification, shared understanding, and immediate adjustment. Static written documents become quickly outdated, encourage lag between change and consumption, and invite misinterpretation without fast feedback loops. Even email, while asynchronous, can be used for rapid, lightweight updates—but it still lacks the immediacy and richness of dialogue. AgilePM stresses visible progress, collaborative workshops, and frequent reviews to keep everyone aligned as facts evolve. Therefore, in a high-change context, a written document is typically the least effective mechanism to keep stakeholders synchronized, whereas live conversations and demonstrations better support timely inspection and adaptation.

The Solution Architecture Definition is an evolutionary product that provides a high-level design framework for the solution2. It is intended to cover both business and technical aspects of the solution to a level of detail that makes the scope of the solution clear but does not constrain evolutionary development2. This ensures that the solution architecture supports the business direction and the solution under development will be fit for its intended purpose3

Comprehensive and Detailed 150–300 words Explanation (paraphrased from Agile Manifesto & AgilePM alignment):

The Agile Manifesto states four value pairings that guide agile delivery. Three relevant to this question are: “Individuals and interactions over processes and tools,” “Customer collaboration over contract negotiation,” and “Responding to change over following a plan.” These emphasize people-centric collaboration, close partnership with customers, and adaptability through iterative inspection and adaptation. The fourth statement in the options is incorrect: the Manifesto values “working software over comprehensive documentation,” not the reverse. AgilePM aligns with these values by encouraging active business involvement, timeboxing, incremental delivery, and MoSCoW prioritization—mechanisms that maximize collaboration, transparency, and the ability to change course based on real feedback. Documentation, plans, and contracts still exist but are framed to enable collaboration and change rather than constrain them. Therefore, the correct set of values among the options is 1, 2, and 3, making A correct.

A Facilitated Workshop provides an interactive environment where all key players can contribute to the outcome3. It is a practice within Agile and DSDM that encourages collaboration and active participation from all stakeholders to shape the project’s direction and solutions.

The missing word in the sentence is “Champion”. The Business Sponsor is known as the project Champion because they are committed to the solution and the delivery approach34. This role is crucial as it provides the strategic direction and controls the funding/budget for the project1.

Principle 1 – Focus on the Business Need suggests that every decision taken during a project should be viewed in light of the overriding project goal. This principle ensures that all decisions align with the main objective of delivering what the business needs, thus maintaining a clear focus on achieving the project’s goals.

Statement 1: Incorrect. While accountability is important, it should be addressed constructively, not by drawing attention to failures in a punitive way.

Statement 2: Incorrect. Constructive conflict is essential for innovation and problem-solving. Avoiding conflict entirely can lead to unresolved issues and reduced performance.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Team Dynamics and Conflict Management: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 5, Section 5.5.

Comprehensive and Detailed 150 to 300 words Explanation From Exact Extract of Agile Project Management (paraphrased to avoid lengthy quotation):

In AgilePM (DSDM), the Team Leader role closely aligns with the facilitative, servant-leadership responsibilities commonly associated with a Scrum Master in Scrum. The Team Leader is accountable for enabling collaborative working, removing impediments, fostering continuous improvement, and protecting the team’s focus within timeboxes—all hallmarks of Scrum Mastery. While titles differ across frameworks, AgilePM explicitly positions Team Leader as the day-to-day lead for the Solution Development Team, emphasizing facilitation, coaching, and ensuring adherence to agreed practices (e.g., MoSCoW prioritization, Definition of Done/quality criteria). By contrast, a Project Manager in AgilePM is a project-level role focused on governance and business case stewardship; a Product Owner (AgilePM’s Business Visionary/Business Ambassador combination) prioritizes value and backlog—this is not a facilitation role; and a Developer focuses on building the solution. Therefore, when mapping roles between Scrum and AgilePM, the Team Leader most naturally substitutes for, or corresponds to, the Scrum Master responsibilities, ensuring servant leadership without shifting into command-and-control behavior.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (paraphrased from Agile Project Management guidance):

AgilePM treats risk management as an intrinsic, continuous activity rather than a siloed function. It reduces uncertainty through short timeboxes, early and frequent validation, empowered cross-functional teams, and active business involvement. Collaborative practices—facilitated workshops, visible backlogs, daily coordination, and regular reviews—surface risks early and promote rapid mitigation through transparency. MoSCoW prioritization and incremental delivery protect time and quality, containing exposure while enabling trade-offs when new information emerges. Formal artifacts and governance still exist, but they are lightweight and outcome-oriented, supporting timely decisions instead of creating bureaucracy. Options B and C conflict with AgilePM’s integrated, collaborative stance by proposing rigid or separated processes. Option D contradicts agile values by elevating contracts over customer collaboration. Consequently, the accurate description is A: integrate risk thinking into everyday work, leveraging collaboration and transparency to manage uncertainty.

Phased Approach: Rolling out change one department at a time reflects a phased delivery strategy, which allows for controlled implementation and adjustment before wider deployment.

Other Options:

A: Big Bang involves simultaneous rollout across the organization.

C: Voluntary Adoption allows individuals to opt in.

D: Incremental/Iterative applies to feature or solution delivery rather than departmental rollout.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Delivery Strategies: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 3, Section 3.7.

Scrum supplies the core framework (roles, events, artifacts) for empirically building products, but it is intentionally lightweight. AgilePM (based on DSDM) complements Scrum by offering a well-tested pool of practices, tools, and techniques that strengthen day-to-day delivery and governance without altering Scrum’s essence. Typical enhancements include MoSCoW prioritization to manage variable scope, timeboxing to protect cadence, facilitated workshops and modeling to accelerate shared understanding, and explicit roles for business involvement to improve decision flow. AgilePM also provides guidance on project-level controls—such as business cases, incremental release planning, and benefits focus—that sit outside Scrum’s product-delivery scope. For a Scrum Master, this combination is valuable: Scrum remains the engine of iterative delivery, while AgilePM offers practical methods to refine backlog refinement, clarify acceptance criteria, manage dependencies, and support predictable delivery against time and cost constraints. Thus, the pairing gives Scrum Masters a richer toolkit to coach teams, align stakeholders, and handle real-world project contexts where governance, prioritization, and incremental release structures are needed—precisely what option B describes.

In a free format Timebox, reviews should take place: B. Throughout the body of the Timebox3.

A Timebox Plan is updated at the Daily Start-ups. These daily meetings allow the team to review progress, discuss any issues, and make necessary adjustments to the plan. Regular updates ensure that the project stays on track and that any deviations are addressed promptly, facilitating smooth and efficient progress towards the Timebox objectives.

Certainty in Neuroscience: The brain seeks predictability and stability, which is supported by delivering change in small, incremental stages. This approach aligns with Agile's iterative and incremental delivery, providing clarity and reducing stress for individuals undergoing change.

Other Options:

B: Delegated decision-making relates to empowerment but does not directly address certainty.

C: Group social events foster connection, not certainty.

D: Public praise boosts morale but doesn’t satisfy the need for predictability.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Iterative and Incremental Delivery: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 3, Section 3.6.

Statement 1: Incorrect. Engaging people in change is complex and requires tailored strategies. It’s not a simple or routine task.

Statement 2: Incorrect. Change situations vary greatly, and no single formula works universally. Agile emphasizes context-specific approaches.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Engagement Strategies: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

Dissatisfaction with the Status Quo: The change formula includes dissatisfaction as a key driver for change. Without sufficient dissatisfaction, the motivation to change is diminished.

Other Options:

B, C, and D: These factors, while important, are not explicitly part of the Beckhard and Harris change formula.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Change Formula Framework: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 6, Section 6.5.

Focus on Benefits: Highlighting the benefits of the change makes the desired end state more attractive, increasing buy-in and reducing resistance. This aligns with the Beckhard and Harris change formula, where the perceived benefits of change must outweigh the dissatisfaction with the status quo and the cost of change.

Other Options:

B: Burning platforms address urgency but don’t directly enhance desirability.

C and D: These are practical measures but don’t necessarily increase desirability.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Change Formula Framework: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 6, Section 6.5.

Statement 1: Correct. Diverse teams bring varied perspectives, which enhances creativity and innovation. AgilePM highlights the importance of leveraging diversity for better outcomes.

Statement 2: Correct. Diverse teams approach problems from multiple angles, resulting in more thorough decision-making. However, this often requires additional time to align perspectives.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Team Collaboration: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.

AgilePM distinguishes clearly between internal delivery roles (the project team and its immediate governance) and the wider set of external stakeholders who affect, constrain, or benefit from the solution. Developers are part of the internal Solution Development Team—hence not external stakeholders. By contrast, Regulatory Authorities are external parties that impose compliance obligations and quality constraints; they influence acceptance and release but are outside the project team structure. Customers (and users) are also external stakeholders: they receive value, validate usability, and provide feedback, yet they are not members of the delivery team itself. Employees who sit outside the formal project team (e.g., business staff impacted by change, operational personnel, support and sales teams) are treated as external stakeholders because they are affected by the solution and provide input, but they don’t hold delivery roles. AgilePM’s organization model embeds active business involvement through defined roles inside the team, while also recognizing a broader environment of external interests that must be engaged and managed. Therefore, the items that best fit the “external stakeholder” classification are 1 (Regulatory Authorities), 3 (Customers), and 4 (Employees); 2 (Developers) belong to the internal delivery team.

Statement 1: Correct. The change curve describes typical emotional responses to change, including denial, resistance, exploration, and commitment.

Statement 2: Incorrect. The change curve applies to both positive and negative changes, as it reflects the adjustment process regardless of the perceived nature of the change.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Emotional Responses to Change: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 6, Section 6.3.

Comprehensive and Detailed 150–300 words Explanation (paraphrased from AgilePM/DSDM guidance):

In AgilePM, the Business Sponsor is the project’s ultimate decision-maker and the role accountable for ensuring continued business justification. This includes owning the investment decision, securing and sustaining funding, and maintaining senior-level commitment to the business opportunity. A lack of commitment represents a threat to the viability of the Business Case; managing and mitigating that risk sits squarely with the Sponsor. The Sponsor establishes clear objectives, champions the initiative across the organization, removes high-level impediments, and ensures that governance supports timely decisions. While the Business Visionary articulates and safeguards the solution vision and value outcomes, that role does not control organizational commitment or funding at the enterprise level. Similarly, Business Advisors provide specialist input but do not own commitment or investment risk. Therefore, where commitment to the business opportunity is wavering or unclear, the Business Sponsor is responsible for intervening—reconfirming the Business Case, rallying stakeholder support, and aligning investment, scope and timescales—so the project remains justified and deliverable.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): KPIs are agreed-upon metrics that measure progress against desired outcomes. These indicators are crucial for tracking the effectiveness of change efforts.

Other Options:

A: Islands of stability refer to elements unaffected by change.

C: Incremental milestones are checkpoints but not specific measures of outcomes.

D: Transition tranches are phases of change implementation.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Outcome Measurement: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 7, Section 7.5.

In DSDM, it is true that one DSDM role does not necessarily mean one person. This allows for flexibility in assigning roles based on the project’s needs and the individuals’ skills and capacities. It is possible for one person to hold multiple roles or for a role to be shared among several people, depending on what is most effective for the project.

According to the DSDM principle ‘Never Compromise Quality,’ the overall level of quality to be delivered within the solution should be agreed at the start of the project5. This principle ensures that quality is not compromised to recover from deviations; instead, the scope of the project will be dynamic6.

Referent Power: This form of power is derived from the personal qualities of the leader, such as charisma, integrity, or ability to inspire, making them a role model for others. AgilePM values leaders who lead by influence rather than authority.

Other Options:

Legitimate: Based on a formal position or title.

Reward: Tied to the ability to offer incentives.

Coercive: Involves using fear or threats, which is not ideal in Agile environments.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Leadership Styles: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 4, Section 4.5.

The MoSCoW technique is used for understanding and managing priorities3. It helps teams prioritize features, user stories, and requirements by categorizing them into Must have, Should have, Could have, and Won’t have, ensuring that the most critical items are addressed first4.

Feedback and Coaching: Sponsors play a critical role in change, and change managers support them by providing feedback and coaching to help them lead effectively. This builds their confidence and ensures alignment with the change vision.

Other Options:

A: Sponsors should prepare the vision themselves.

B: Sponsors themselves lead commitment-building efforts.

D: Protecting sponsors isn’t an effective strategy; engaging them is key.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Sponsor Engagement: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 6, Section 6.2.