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

PMI-ACP Exam - 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

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:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Tonja
5 months ago
Feedback to the architecture team? That seems risky.
upvoted 0 times
...
Justine
5 months ago
Wait, how did they miss the architecture standards?
upvoted 0 times
...
Aja
5 months ago
I don't think raising an exception is a good idea.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elenor
5 months ago
Totally agree, early engagement is key.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dana
6 months ago
Should've involved stakeholders earlier!
upvoted 0 times
...
Sol
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
7 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
12 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
10 months ago
User 3: D) Raised an exception for non-adherence to the enterprise architecture standards for this product.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lillian
11 months ago
True, but it's always good to follow the established processes to avoid any major setbacks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Noelia
11 months ago
But D) could work too. Sometimes you have to take risks to get things done.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tish
11 months ago
User 2: Tish is right, that's the safe bet.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vallie
11 months ago
I think B) is the safer option. It's important to engage key stakeholders early on.
upvoted 0 times
...
Whitney
11 months ago
User 1: B) Ensured the early engagement of key stakeholders.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Nohemi
1 year 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
11 months ago
User 2: True, sometimes it's better to play it safe and involve key stakeholders early on.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deeanna
12 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
1 year 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
11 months ago
User 4: Let's make sure to involve the architecture team next time.
upvoted 0 times
...
Wynell
11 months ago
User 3: It's important to be flexible when necessary.
upvoted 0 times
...
Amie
11 months ago
User 2: That could have saved us from cancelling the sprint.
upvoted 0 times
...
Iola
12 months ago
User 1: We should have raised an exception for non-adherence to the standards.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Chantell
1 year 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
1 year ago
Providing feedback to the architecture team to change the standards could have prevented this.
upvoted 0 times
...
Andra
1 year ago
I think ensuring early engagement of key stakeholders would have helped.
upvoted 0 times
...
Adelle
1 year ago
We should have escalated the issue to management.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel