Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

PMI Exam PMI-ACP Topic 4 Question 93 Discussion

Actual exam question for PMI's PMI-ACP exam
Question #: 93
Topic #: 4
[All PMI-ACP Questions]

Midway through a sprint, a team member discovers that the product design fails to adhere to the organization's enterprise architecture standards. Since this required escalation to the architecture team for further analysis and resolution, the team was unable to deliver its sprint goal and the sprint was cancelled.

What should the team have done to avoid this?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

Contribute your Thoughts:

Elenora
2 months ago
Well, B) is the textbook answer, but I'm feeling a bit rebellious today. How about D)? Raise an exception and let the architecture team deal with it. What's the worst that could happen, another cancelled sprint?
upvoted 0 times
Dana
11 days ago
User 3: D) Raised an exception for non-adherence to the enterprise architecture standards for this product.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lillian
15 days ago
True, but it's always good to follow the established processes to avoid any major setbacks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Noelia
16 days ago
But D) could work too. Sometimes you have to take risks to get things done.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tish
1 months ago
User 2: Tish is right, that's the safe bet.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vallie
1 months ago
I think B) is the safer option. It's important to engage key stakeholders early on.
upvoted 0 times
...
Whitney
1 months ago
User 1: B) Ensured the early engagement of key stakeholders.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Nohemi
2 months ago
Haha, C) Providing feedback to change the standards? Good luck with that! The architecture team is like a brick wall, you're not getting through. B) is the safest bet, but where's the fun in that?
upvoted 0 times
Mitzie
1 months ago
User 2: True, sometimes it's better to play it safe and involve key stakeholders early on.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deeanna
2 months ago
User 1: Yeah, B) is the safe choice, but it's better than hitting a brick wall with C).
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Jill
2 months ago
I'd go with D) Raising an exception for non-adherence to the standards. Sometimes you have to bend the rules a bit to get things done. As long as the architecture team is on board, it's better than scrapping the whole sprint.
upvoted 0 times
Jules
13 days ago
User 4: Let's make sure to involve the architecture team next time.
upvoted 0 times
...
Wynell
14 days ago
User 3: It's important to be flexible when necessary.
upvoted 0 times
...
Amie
1 months ago
User 2: That could have saved us from cancelling the sprint.
upvoted 0 times
...
Iola
2 months ago
User 1: We should have raised an exception for non-adherence to the standards.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Chantell
2 months ago
B) Ensuring early engagement of key stakeholders is the way to go. That would have helped identify this issue upfront and avoid the sprint cancellation. Hindsight is 20/20, but better planning could have saved the day.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elmira
2 months ago
Providing feedback to the architecture team to change the standards could have prevented this.
upvoted 0 times
...
Andra
2 months ago
I think ensuring early engagement of key stakeholders would have helped.
upvoted 0 times
...
Adelle
3 months ago
We should have escalated the issue to management.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77