PMI-ACP Exam - Topic 4 Question 93 Discussion

Actual exam question for PMI's PMI-ACP exam

Question #: 93
Topic #: 4

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?

AEscalated the issue to management

BEnsured the early engagement of key stakeholders

CProvided feedback to the architecture team to change the enterprise architecture standards

DRaised an exception for non-adherence to the enterprise architecture standards for this product

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A

by Alecia at Nov 17, 2024, 03:42 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium PMI-ACP Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Tonja

3 months ago

Feedback to the architecture team? That seems risky.

upvoted 0 times

...

Justine

3 months ago

Wait, how did they miss the architecture standards?

upvoted 0 times

...

Aja

3 months ago

I don't think raising an exception is a good idea.

upvoted 0 times

...

Elenor

4 months ago

Totally agree, early engagement is key.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dana

4 months ago

Should've involved stakeholders earlier!

upvoted 0 times

...

Sol

4 months ago

I think ensuring early engagement of key stakeholders is crucial. If the architecture team was involved from the start, this issue might have been caught sooner.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nell

4 months ago

I vaguely recall a practice question about exceptions to standards. Raising an exception could have been a possible solution, but I wonder if it would have been the right choice.

upvoted 0 times

...

Bobbye

4 months ago

I'm not entirely sure, but I think escalating to management might not have been the best first step. It feels like there should have been a way to address it within the team first.

upvoted 0 times

...

Geoffrey

5 months ago

I remember we discussed the importance of early stakeholder engagement in our last class. It seems like that could have helped here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nina

5 months ago

This is a tough call, but I'm leaning towards option B. Getting the architecture team involved early on could have helped us identify and resolve this issue before it derailed the entire sprint.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jeannetta

5 months ago

I think option D is the way to go here. Raising an exception for non-adherence to the standards seems like the most straightforward solution. We shouldn't have to change the entire architecture just for this one product.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tegan

5 months ago

Definitely go with option B - ensuring early engagement of key stakeholders. That's the best way to avoid these kinds of issues and keep the project on track.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nada

5 months ago

I'm a bit confused on this one. Should we have escalated to management or tried to get an exception? I'm not sure which approach would be best in this situation.

upvoted 0 times

...

Craig

5 months ago

Hmm, this is a tricky one. I think the key is to focus on early stakeholder engagement and communication. We need to make sure the architecture team is involved from the start to avoid these kinds of surprises.

upvoted 0 times

...

Elenora

10 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

9 months ago

User 3: D) Raised an exception for non-adherence to the enterprise architecture standards for this product.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lillian

9 months ago

True, but it's always good to follow the established processes to avoid any major setbacks.

upvoted 0 times

...

Noelia

9 months ago

But D) could work too. Sometimes you have to take risks to get things done.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tish

9 months ago

User 2: Tish is right, that's the safe bet.

upvoted 0 times

...

Vallie

9 months ago

I think B) is the safer option. It's important to engage key stakeholders early on.

upvoted 0 times

...

Whitney

9 months ago

User 1: B) Ensured the early engagement of key stakeholders.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nohemi

10 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

10 months ago

User 2: True, sometimes it's better to play it safe and involve key stakeholders early on.

upvoted 0 times

...

Deeanna

10 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

11 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

9 months ago

User 4: Let's make sure to involve the architecture team next time.

upvoted 0 times

...

Wynell

9 months ago

User 3: It's important to be flexible when necessary.

upvoted 0 times

...

Amie

9 months ago

User 2: That could have saved us from cancelling the sprint.

upvoted 0 times

...

Iola

10 months ago

User 1: We should have raised an exception for non-adherence to the standards.

upvoted 0 times

...

Chantell

11 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

...