Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

IIBA-AAC Exam - Topic 2 Question 101 Discussion

Actual exam question for IIBA's IIBA-AAC exam
Question #: 101
Topic #: 2
[All IIBA-AAC Questions]

At the Initiative Horizon, the solution owner using iterative planning principles decides to plan for a period of:

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

https://www.agilealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/AgileExtension_V2-Member-Copy.pdf (46)

by Olga at Nov 20, 2025, 10:04 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium IIBA-AAC Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Lynda
2 days ago
Totally agree, shorter cycles keep us agile!
upvoted 0 times
...
Leonora
7 days ago
Wait, 1-2 weeks? That seems too short for planning!
upvoted 0 times
...
My
26 days ago
3-6 months sounds reasonable for stability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vannessa
1 month ago
6-12 months is way too long for iterative planning.
upvoted 0 times
...
Detra
1 month ago
D) 1-2 weeks? What is this, a lemonade stand? Real businesses plan for the long haul!
upvoted 0 times
...
Rodolfo
1 month ago
C) 3-6 months because stability is required for long term planning. Slow and steady wins the race.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jacquelyne
2 months ago
A) 6-12 months because competitive analysis requires thorough analysis. Gotta do it right, no shortcuts!
upvoted 0 times
...
Edison
2 months ago
D) 1-2 weeks because it aligns with the increments delivered by the team. This is the way!
upvoted 0 times
...
Gregoria
2 months ago
I have a vague memory of the importance of stability in planning, so C could be a contender, but I’m leaning towards B for its focus on immediate feedback.
upvoted 0 times
...
Earleen
2 months ago
I think we practiced a question similar to this, and I recall that 3-6 months might be too long for iterative planning. Maybe A is more about thoroughness than agility?
upvoted 0 times
...
Rima
2 months ago
I’m not entirely sure, but I feel like D could be a good option since it aligns with agile principles of delivering increments quickly.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nidia
2 months ago
I remember discussing how shorter planning cycles can help adapt to changing needs, so I think B might be the right choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fallon
3 months ago
I'm leaning towards B - 1-3 months. The iterative planning approach suggests a focus on quickly adapting to meet needs, rather than a lengthy competitive analysis.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mertie
3 months ago
D - 1-2 weeks seems too short. The question is about the Initiative Horizon, which implies a broader scope than just the increments delivered by the team.
upvoted 0 times
...
Penney
3 months ago
B) 1-3 months because it can be determined if needs are being met.
upvoted 0 times
...
Scarlet
3 months ago
I think 1-3 months is ideal. Quick feedback is crucial.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rex
3 months ago
Definitely C - 3-6 months. Stability is key for long-term planning, and the question specifically mentions this as a factor.
upvoted 0 times
...
Robt
4 months ago
I think 1-3 months is ideal for quick feedback!
upvoted 0 times
...
Vanda
4 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure about this one. The question mentions "competitive analysis" which makes me think a longer planning period might be needed. I'm torn between A and C.
upvoted 0 times
...
Oren
4 months ago
I think the answer is B - 1-3 months. The question mentions iterative planning, so the focus should be on quickly determining if needs are being met rather than a longer planning horizon.
upvoted 0 times
Goldie
4 months ago
I agree, B makes the most sense for iterative planning.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel