MENU
At the Initiative Horizon, the solution owner using iterative planning principles decides to plan for a period of:
Suggested Answer: B
Get Premium IIBA-AAC Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
30 comments · newest first
IR
Iraida
7 months ago
3-6 months balances stability and flexibility well.
CH
Charlesetta
7 months ago
I agree with 1-3 months. It keeps us agile and responsive.
PH
Phyliss
7 months ago
6-12 months feels too long. Market changes fast!
ST
Staci
7 months ago
1-2 weeks sounds too short. We need more time to assess.
LA
Latricia
7 months ago
I prefer 3-6 months. It gives time for adjustments.
LY
Lynda
8 months ago
Totally agree, shorter cycles keep us agile!
LE
Leonora
8 months ago
Wait, 1-2 weeks? That seems too short for planning!
MY
My
8 months ago
3-6 months sounds reasonable for stability.
VA
Vannessa
9 months ago
6-12 months is way too long for iterative planning.
DE
Detra
9 months ago
D) 1-2 weeks? What is this, a lemonade stand? Real businesses plan for the long haul!
RO
Rodolfo
9 months ago
C) 3-6 months because stability is required for long term planning. Slow and steady wins the race.
JA
Jacquelyne
9 months ago
A) 6-12 months because competitive analysis requires thorough analysis. Gotta do it right, no shortcuts!
ED
Edison
9 months ago
D) 1-2 weeks because it aligns with the increments delivered by the team. This is the way!
GR
Gregoria
9 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.
EA
Earleen
10 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?
RI
Rima
10 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.
NI
Nidia
10 months ago
I remember discussing how shorter planning cycles can help adapt to changing needs, so I think B might be the right choice.
FA
Fallon
10 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.
ME
Mertie
10 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.
PE
Penney
10 months ago
B) 1-3 months because it can be determined if needs are being met.
SC
Scarlet
11 months ago
I think 1-3 months is ideal. Quick feedback is crucial.
RE
Rex
11 months ago
Definitely C - 3-6 months. Stability is key for long-term planning, and the question specifically mentions this as a factor.
RO
Robt
11 months ago
I think 1-3 months is ideal for quick feedback!
VA
Vanda
11 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.
OR
Oren
12 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.
DY
Dyan
6 months ago
Exactly! Quick iterations lead to better results.
MA
Margurite
6 months ago
Longer planning can be risky in fast-paced environments.
TE
Tegan
6 months ago
B is definitely the way to go for feedback.
AR
Arthur
7 months ago
Yeah, shorter cycles help adapt quickly.
GO
Goldie
11 months ago
I agree, B makes the most sense for iterative planning.