MENU
When calculating Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF), what action should be taken?
Suggested Answer: C
Get Premium SAFe-APM Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
The most important planning question for primary research is what will be asked, because this determines the type, quality, and relevance of the data that will be collected. The research question or hypothesis should be specific, narrow, and discoverable through primary research methods, and it should align with the research purpose and objectives. The research question or hypothesis guides the choice of the research medium, the sample size and selection, and the data analysis and interpretation.
36 comments · newest first
AU
Augustine
11 months ago
Each team in its own bucket? That could get messy!
MA
Margarett
11 months ago
I disagree, executing one column at a time is too slow.
TE
Telma
11 months ago
Wait, are we really using Fibonacci for ceilings? Seems odd.
LA
Laila
11 months ago
I think option D makes the most sense for accurate scoring.
AL
Alpha
12 months ago
WSJF is all about prioritizing based on value and effort!
BA
Barrie
12 months ago
I vaguely remember something about individual sizing by role, but synchronizing later seems tricky. I hope I don't mix that up during the exam!
ED
Edwin
12 months ago
I feel like putting each team in its own WSJF bucket could complicate things, but I can't remember why we thought that was a bad idea.
NI
Nicolette
1 year ago
I remember practicing a question where we had to set a ceiling for scoring, but I can't recall if it was specifically about Fibonacci. That might be relevant here.
CA
Cathrine
1 year ago
I think we discussed something about executing one column at a time in our last study group, but I'm not entirely sure if that's the right approach for WSJF.
NO
Novella
1 year ago
Putting each team in its own WSJF bucket? I'm not sure that makes sense for this question. Gotta think this through.
DE
Delmy
1 year ago
Setting a Fibonacci "ceiling" and working down sounds like an interesting strategy, but I'm not sure if that's the right approach here.
JO
Jodi
1 year ago
Okay, I remember learning about WSJF in class. I think the key is to focus on the relative priorities, not just the individual scores.
PE
Pearlie
1 year ago
I'm not totally sure about the WSJF process, but I think executing one column at a time might be the way to go.
BA
Barbra
1 year ago
Hmm, this WSJF question seems tricky. I'll need to think it through carefully.
AL
Alfred
1 year ago
Okay, let's see. Caller Tracking, Caller Restriction, and Caller Permission all sound like they could be caller access field options. I'm going to have to eliminate those and go with C. None.
NA
Natalie
1 year ago
I remember a practice question where we discussed how an audit trail helps in verifying transaction completeness. I'm not entirely sure, but it seems like A might be part of that.
CA
Carma
1 year ago
Okay, I've got this. The key is to identify the most serious risk that could result from a compromised customer management interface over the public internet.
CL
Claribel
1 year ago
I'm a little confused on the differences between SNMP, SMTP, SCP, and SFTP. I'll need to review those protocols before deciding.
BR
Brice
1 year ago
Wait, did someone say 'Fibonacci'? I thought this was a simple job prioritization technique, not a secret code from Da Vinci!
AR
Armando
1 year ago
C) Put each team in its own WSJF bucket
TY
Tyisha
1 year ago
Wait, did someone say 'Fibonacci'? I thought this was a simple job prioritization technique, not a secret code from Da Vinci!
KA
Kanisha
1 year ago
B) Set your 'ceiling' in Fibonacci and work down to the lowest-scoring item
HO
Hobert
1 year ago
A) Execute one column at a time in full, then move on to the next
BR
Brande
1 year ago
Hah, I can just imagine some poor soul trying to wrangle all the team WSJF buckets. Nah, I'm sticking with the classic individual sizing approach.
TO
Tomas
2 years ago
Putting each team in its own bucket? That just sounds like a recipe for confusion. I'll have to go with D - it makes the most sense to size things individually first.
GA
Gail
2 years ago
I prefer setting my 'ceiling' in Fibonacci and working down to the lowest-scoring item.
OM
Omer
2 years ago
B sounds like a weird way to do it. Fibonacci ceilings? Come on, this is WSJF, not some advanced math problem!
DE
Denae
1 year ago
C) Put each team in its own WSJF bucket
DO
Dorathy
1 year ago
A) Execute one column at a time in full, then move on to the next
RO
Rocco
2 years ago
I disagree, I believe we should execute one column at a time in full, then move on to the next.
RO
Rossana
2 years ago
I think option A is the way to go - it's the most straightforward approach to WSJF. You tackle one column at a time instead of jumping around.
BL
Blythe
1 year ago
User 4: I think performing individual sizing by role first is more efficient.
TO
Tori
1 year ago
User 3: Putting each team in its own WSJF bucket seems like a good idea.
IS
Isaac
1 year ago
User 2: I prefer setting my 'ceiling' in Fibonacci and working down.
VI
Vicki
1 year ago
User 1: I agree, tackling one column at a time makes it easier to focus.
LA
Larae
2 years ago
I think we should put each team in its own WSJF bucket.