Free and Premium PRINCE2 PRINCE2-Agile-Foundation Dumps Questions Answers

Psychological safety is a critical enabler of effective Agile teams, and Agile Foundation materials often reference the four progressive levels of psychological safety: inclusion safety, learner safety, contributor safety, and challenger safety. Among these, contributor safety is the level that specifically encourages individuals to share their ideas, knowledge, and skills openly while making meaningful contributions to the team’s work.

Contributor safety exists when team members feel trusted and empowered to apply their skills, experience, and ideas without fear of embarrassment, rejection, or negative consequences. At this level, individuals are not only accepted as part of the team but are also encouraged to actively participate, take ownership of tasks, and contribute value. Agile environments rely heavily on this level of safety because collaboration, cross-functional work, and self-organization depend on people confidently sharing what they know and what they can do.

Option C, inclusion safety, is more foundational. It ensures that individuals feel accepted and respected as members of the group, but it does not necessarily mean they feel safe enough to contribute ideas or skills. Option D, learner safety, focuses on the ability to ask questions, experiment, and make mistakes in order to learn. While important, it centers on learning rather than contribution. Option A, challenger safety, represents the most advanced level, where individuals feel safe to challenge existing ideas, processes, and decisions. This goes beyond sharing skills and ideas into constructive dissent.

Agile Foundation guidance emphasizes contributor safety because Agile teams thrive when every member actively contributes to delivering value. When contributor safety is present, teams benefit from diverse perspectives, improved problem-solving, higher engagement, and stronger accountability. This level of psychological safety directly supports Agile principles such as collaboration, transparency, and continuous improvement, making option B the correct answer.

A well-recognized challenge when merging traditional project management with Agile approaches is the use of different terminology, making option B the correct answer. Agile Foundation materials highlight that traditional project management and Agile have evolved from different perspectives, each with its own language, concepts, and assumptions. When these approaches are combined within the same organization or project, misunderstandings often arise due to terminology differences rather than fundamental conflicts in intent.

Traditional project management commonly uses terms such as scope, milestones, deliverables, baselines, and change control, while Agile uses concepts like backlog, iterations, increments, velocity, and value delivery. Even when the underlying goals are aligned, different terminology can create confusion among stakeholders, project managers, Agile teams, and senior leadership. This confusion may lead to misaligned expectations, incorrect reporting, or resistance to Agile practices, as people may interpret the same words differently or assume conflicting meanings.

Option A, lack of clear processes, is generally not a common issue because both project management and Agile provide structured approaches, albeit in different forms. Option C, lack of guidance at the project level, is also not accurate, as Agile Foundation guidance increasingly addresses how Agile can operate at team, project, and organizational levels. Option D, the use of a flexible framework, is actually a benefit of Agile rather than a challenge.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that overcoming terminology differences requires education, shared understanding, and alignment rather than choosing one approach over the other. By establishing a common language, clarifying roles and expectations, and focusing on value delivery rather than labels, organizations can successfully integrate Agile ways of working with project management governance. Addressing terminology differences early helps reduce friction, improves collaboration, and enables a more effective hybrid or Agile-informed project environment.

The Progress Review Workshop is the key forum to assess the current status of the project and address challenges or issues affecting progress. It typically involves reviewing the current stage or release against plan, assessing risks, issues, and dependencies, and agreeing on corrective actions or decisions to keep the project on track.

While retrospectives (B and C) focus on reflecting and improving team practices, and team planning (A) looks ahead to upcoming work, progress reviews are focused on monitoring, control, and decision-making at the project or stage level.

This workshop aligns with PRINCE2’s principle of manage by exception, enabling timely interventions without unnecessary escalation.

Delegation poker is a collaborative game used to define and clarify decision-making authority within teams. It helps teams agree on who has the power to make decisions for specific areas, from the team level to senior management. Using cards representing different levels of delegation, team members discuss and align expectations, ensuring clarity and reducing conflicts.

This technique fosters transparency, shared ownership, and empowerment, which are critical for agile teams operating under PRINCE2 governance. It also helps balance autonomy and control, supporting the principle of manage by exception.

Other options: a team skills matrix documents competencies, personas represent user archetypes for design, and magic estimation is a sizing technique — none focus on decision authority.

Delegation poker aligns well with PRINCE2 Agile’s emphasis on defined roles and empowered teams.

Agile Foundation guidance explains that the risk practice is concerned with identifying, assessing, and managing uncertainty in a structured and proactive way. One of the specific ways this practice is applied in Agile and PRINCE2 Agile contexts is by identifying Agile adoption risks using the Agilometer, making option A the correct answer.

The Agilometer is a diagnostic tool designed to assess how suitable Agile approaches are for a particular project or environment. It examines factors such as organizational culture, stakeholder engagement, governance requirements, team capability, and delivery constraints. By highlighting areas of risk related to Agile adoption, the Agilometer enables teams and leaders to make informed decisions about how Agile should be tailored and what mitigations are needed. This aligns directly with the purpose of the risk practice, which is to reduce uncertainty and protect value.

Option B, trading to handle emerging changes, relates to scope and prioritization flexibility rather than risk management itself. While trading can reduce risk indirectly by controlling scope, it is not a primary application of the risk practice. Option C, using an objectives and key results framework, focuses on goal-setting and performance measurement, not risk identification or assessment. Option D, identifying criteria in the Definition of Done, supports quality management rather than risk management.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that Agile does not eliminate risk; instead, it makes risk visible and manageable through early feedback, incremental delivery, and structured assessment. The risk practice ensures that uncertainties are understood and addressed continuously throughout the lifecycle. By using tools such as the Agilometer, organizations can anticipate challenges in Agile adoption and take proactive steps to manage them. This supports effective governance while preserving Agile’s flexibility, ensuring that Agile is applied in a way that is both realistic and sustainable.

A primary benefit of an organization being and doing agile is faster time-to-market. Agile methods emphasize iterative delivery, frequent releases, and continuous feedback, enabling organizations to deliver value sooner and adapt quickly to changes. This benefit directly supports business agility and competitive advantage.

Using agile techniques alone (B) is a means, not a benefit. Focusing solely on tasks (C) ignores value and flow, and setting tolerances to zero (D) is neither practical nor encouraged.

The project closure workshop is held to formally close the project, during which project documentation is updated to reflect the final state of the project, lessons learned are captured, and approvals are obtained. This ensures that all activities are completed, the project has delivered its intended products, and knowledge is retained for future projects or organizational learning.

Aligning teams (A) and refining release maps (D) are activities conducted earlier in the lifecycle, while benefits management (B) is usually defined during initiation and planning stages.

Agile Foundation guidance describes co-creation as a collaborative approach where value is created together by people who share common attitudes, values, and goals. This makes option C the correct answer. Co-creation goes beyond simply assigning work or motivating individuals to meet predefined objectives. Instead, it emphasizes collective ownership, shared understanding, and active participation by all relevant stakeholders in shaping outcomes.

In Agile environments, co-creation is rooted in the belief that the best solutions emerge when diverse perspectives work together in an open and trusting environment. Teams, customers, users, and stakeholders collaborate continuously to explore needs, generate ideas, and refine solutions. This shared mindset ensures that everyone involved is aligned on purpose and value, rather than working in isolation or following instructions without context.

Option A focuses on motivation to meet objectives, which reflects performance management rather than co-creation. While motivation is important, it does not necessarily involve shared ownership or joint value creation. Option B, agreeing ways of working, relates to establishing working agreements or team norms, which support collaboration but do not define co-creation itself. Option D, instructing the execution of tasks, represents a command-and-control approach that is contrary to Agile principles and does not encourage shared responsibility or creativity.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that co-creation strengthens engagement, trust, and innovation. When people share attitudes, values, and goals, they are more likely to challenge assumptions constructively, learn from each other, and adapt solutions based on feedback. This approach supports Agile principles such as collaboration, customer focus, and continuous improvement. Co-creation ensures that value is not simply delivered to stakeholders but created with them, leading to better outcomes, higher satisfaction, and more sustainable Agile ways of working.

The Delivering level is responsible for the day-to-day management and decision-making within the constraints set by the project manager. Delivering teams carry out the actual work to create the project products and manage their activities under the project’s governance framework. The Project Manager manages the overall project, while directing sets the strategic direction and commissioning authorizes initiation.

This separation ensures clear responsibilities and empowers the delivery teams to self-manage within defined boundaries.

Agile Foundation guidance emphasizes building quality into the product from the very beginning rather than relying on late-stage inspection or escalation. When a minor quality control failure occurs during product creation, the most appropriate initial response is to revisit the development and test activities, making option C the correct answer. Agile promotes continuous quality assurance through iterative development, frequent testing, and fast feedback loops, allowing teams to correct issues as soon as they emerge.

In Agile environments, quality is a shared responsibility of the entire team. Minor defects or quality issues are viewed as learning opportunities rather than failures that require formal escalation. Revisiting development and testing activities allows the team to quickly identify root causes, such as unclear acceptance criteria, gaps in automated tests, or misunderstandings in requirements. By addressing the issue at its source, teams can prevent similar defects from recurring in future iterations.

Option A, escalating the issue to the project manager, is generally unnecessary for minor quality failures in Agile. Agile teams are empowered to self-manage and resolve issues at the team level whenever possible. Option B, performing an independent review, may be appropriate for major or systemic quality problems but is excessive as an initial response to a minor issue. Option D, discussing the issue with the chief product owner, is also not the first step unless the issue affects product value or requires a change in priorities.

Agile Foundation documents stress the importance of continuous improvement, built-in quality practices, and early defect resolution. Techniques such as test-driven development, continuous integration, peer reviews, and frequent retrospectives support this approach. By immediately revisiting development and test activities, Agile teams maintain flow, reduce rework, and ensure that quality issues are resolved quickly and effectively, reinforcing Agile principles of transparency, inspection, and adaptation.

Trading/swapping is a technique used within the issues practice to manage and resolve conflicts or competing priorities by negotiating trade-offs. For example, scope items, resources, or deadlines may be traded or swapped between stakeholders to reach agreements that keep the project on track.

This collaborative negotiation supports flexible, pragmatic issue resolution, aligning with agile values of collaboration and customer focus. It enables project teams to balance competing demands while maintaining progress and business justification.

Objectives and key results (B) are goal-setting tools, refactoring (C) is a technical practice for code improvement, and delegation poker (D) is about decision-making authority — none specifically target issue resolution.

Trading/swapping aligns with PRINCE2’s controlled management of issues and agile’s collaborative problem-solving approach.

The Team Retrospective Workshop is explicitly designed to facilitate team growth and continuous improvement in working practices. It is a fundamental agile practice where the team reflects on the recently completed work or sprint to identify what went well, what didn’t, and what could be improved. The goal is to foster an environment of trust and openness, enabling teams to discuss challenges and successes honestly.

Retrospectives promote inspect and adapt principles by encouraging teams to continuously evaluate their processes, collaboration, and tools. They help uncover systemic issues, process bottlenecks, or interpersonal challenges that may be impeding productivity or quality. Teams use this feedback to implement actionable improvements, which can range from adjusting communication methods to refining definitions of done or ready.

This workshop supports a key agile mindset—continuous learning and improvement—which directly contributes to team maturity, performance, and morale. Importantly, retrospectives are not about assigning blame but rather about fostering a growth mindset that accepts change as an opportunity to evolve.

While Project Kickoff Workshops (A) initiate project alignment and Progress Review Workshops (C) monitor project status, they do not primarily focus on team process improvements. The Team Planning Workshop (D) is concerned with planning upcoming work, not retrospection.

In PRINCE2 Agile, retrospectives are a critical tool to blend traditional project management with agile principles by promoting regular reflection and incremental enhancements.

The concept of “being Agile” rather than merely “doing Agile” is a central theme in Agile Foundation guidance. “Being Agile” refers to adopting the Agile mindset, values, and principles as a way of thinking and behaving, rather than simply applying a set of tools, ceremonies, or techniques. This mindset emphasizes adaptability, collaboration, continuous learning, and responsiveness to change, which is best represented by option B.

Agile foundations clearly distinguish mindset from mechanics. While timelines, documentation, and techniques have their place, they are secondary to people, interactions, and the ability to respond effectively to changing circumstances. Adaptability means welcoming change, even late in development, when it improves value for customers and stakeholders. Collaboration emphasizes close, ongoing cooperation between cross-functional team members, business representatives, and customers, ensuring shared understanding and faster decision-making.

Option A focuses on strict timelines and task completion, which aligns more closely with traditional predictive or plan-driven approaches. Agile recognizes that rigid timelines can reduce flexibility and discourage learning. Option C emphasizes document-driven processes, which contradict the Agile value of prioritizing working solutions over comprehensive documentation. Documentation is useful, but it should support value delivery, not dominate it. Option D highlights Agile techniques for efficiency, which reflects “doing Agile” rather than “being Agile.” Techniques such as stand-ups, boards, or retrospectives only create value when guided by an Agile mindset.

In Agile foundations, “being Agile” enables teams to continuously inspect and adapt their ways of working, improve relationships, and deliver meaningful outcomes. By focusing on adaptability and collaboration, organizations create environments where teams can respond effectively to uncertainty, learn from feedback, and consistently deliver value, which is the true intent of Agile.

The Progress practice in PRINCE2 Agile is focused on providing a forecast of the project's viability by monitoring actual progress against plans and predicting future performance. It ensures that decisions can be made based on current status and trends, enabling timely interventions if necessary.

This practice involves collecting progress data, reviewing milestones, updating forecasts, and communicating status to stakeholders. Forecasting viability includes assessing whether the project remains aligned with business justification and expected benefits.

While opportunities and threats are part of risk management (B), user needs belong to requirements management (C), and accountability is a broader governance concern (D), progress specifically deals with tracking and forecasting delivery status.

The practice combines traditional PRINCE2 stage controls with agile iterative reviews, providing an integrated view of progress.

In Agile Foundation guidance, the team coach plays a key role in supporting one or more Agile teams in adopting and improving Agile ways of working. A core responsibility of the team coach is to liaise with the agile coach, making option A the correct answer. This relationship ensures alignment between team-level coaching and organization-wide Agile adoption.

The team coach focuses primarily on the day-to-day effectiveness of the team. This includes helping the team understand Agile principles, improve collaboration, enhance communication, and continuously improve their ways of working. The agile coach, on the other hand, typically operates at a broader level, supporting multiple teams, leaders, and the organization as a whole in embedding Agile culture and practices. By liaising with the agile coach, the team coach ensures that insights, challenges, and progress at the team level are shared and addressed consistently across the organization.

Option B, liaising with the project manager, is not a primary responsibility of the team coach in Agile foundations. While coordination may occur, Agile reduces dependency on traditional command-and-control roles. Option C, liaising with the chief product owner, is also not central to the team coach role, as product ownership focuses on value and prioritization rather than team dynamics and Agile maturity. Option D, liaising with project assurance, aligns more with governance and compliance functions rather than coaching responsibilities.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that effective coaching relies on collaboration between coaching roles. The team coach provides detailed, practical feedback from the team, while the agile coach offers strategic direction, consistency, and organizational support. This collaboration strengthens Agile adoption, helps remove systemic impediments, and ensures that teams are supported both locally and at scale. By liaising with the agile coach, the team coach helps create a coherent, sustainable Agile environment focused on continuous improvement and value delivery.

Agile Foundation guidance explains that the release planning workshop is the forum where personas and evolving user needs are revisited and refined, making option C the correct answer. Release planning focuses on aligning upcoming work with user value, business priorities, and learning gained from previous deliveries. As Agile delivery is iterative and incremental, understanding users is not a one-off activity but an ongoing process that evolves as feedback is gathered.

During a release planning workshop, teams review insights from recent increments, stakeholder feedback, and real user behavior. Personas—representations of key user types—are revisited to confirm whether assumptions remain valid or need adjustment. As products evolve, new needs may emerge, priorities may shift, and earlier hypotheses about users may prove incomplete. Release planning provides the structured opportunity to incorporate this learning and refine the understanding of who the users are and what they need most next.

Option A, the team retrospective workshop, focuses on improving the team’s ways of working rather than reviewing user needs or personas. Option B, the project kickoff workshop, is typically held at the start of the initiative to establish initial vision, scope, and understanding, but it does not revisit evolving needs. Option D, the agile enablement workshop, concentrates on assessing and planning for risks associated with Agile adoption, not on refining user personas.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that Agile success depends on continuous alignment with customer and user value. Release planning workshops support this by ensuring that upcoming work reflects the latest understanding of user needs rather than outdated assumptions. By regularly revisiting personas during release planning, teams strengthen customer focus, reduce waste, and improve the likelihood that delivered increments will meet real user expectations. This approach reinforces Agile principles of feedback, learning, and value-driven delivery.

The Risk practice is specifically aimed at controlling uncertainties that could impact the achievement of the project’s objectives. In PRINCE2 Agile, risk management involves identifying, assessing, and controlling threats and opportunities to reduce negative impacts and maximize positive outcomes.

Effective risk management is a core theme and practice in PRINCE2 Agile and is crucial for agile environments where change and uncertainty are inherent. The practice ensures that risks are continuously monitored and appropriate responses are planned and implemented. This proactive management helps keep the project viable and aligned with business justification.

While plans support managing scope and resources, issues deal with current problems rather than potential future events, and quality ensures that products meet requirements, risk management uniquely focuses on uncertainty.

The PRINCE2 Agile guidance emphasizes integrating agile techniques such as frequent reviews and retrospectives to improve risk awareness and control.

The Project Closure Workshop is the formal forum used to reflect on lessons learned during the project lifecycle. It is held towards the end of the project and provides an opportunity for the project team, stakeholders, and sponsors to review successes, challenges, and areas for improvement.

Capturing lessons learned supports organizational learning, helps avoid repeating mistakes, and improves future projects and agile adoption. This reflective practice aligns with PRINCE2’s focus on continuous improvement and governance requirements.

Other workshops such as team planning (A) focus on upcoming work, agile enablement (B) on agile adoption, and project kickoff (C) on project initiation, none of which prioritize lessons learned reflection.

The project closure workshop is a vital practice to ensure knowledge retention and maturity in both traditional and agile project environments.

A key criterion for the Definition of Ready is that acceptance criteria are measurable. This ensures that work items are clearly understood, well-defined, and have objective criteria to confirm when they are complete. Measurable acceptance criteria reduce ambiguity and support efficient development and quality assurance.

Other options describe completion or handover stages, which are more relevant to the Definition of Done, not Ready.

Kanban uses a flow-based approach to visualize and control work in progress (WIP). It emphasizes limiting WIP to improve flow and reduce bottlenecks, with continuous monitoring via Kanban boards. This approach supports flexibility, transparency, and efficiency in managing tasks.

The Agilometer (A) measures agility, Lean (B) is a broad philosophy focusing on waste reduction, and Scrum (D) is an iterative framework but uses time-boxed sprints rather than flow-based control.

The Team Planning Workshop is primarily held to update the product backlog. This collaborative session allows the delivery team to break down, refine, and reprioritize user stories or tasks to prepare for the upcoming iteration or sprint. The team reviews the product backlog items, clarifies acceptance criteria, estimates effort, and commits to the planned work.

Updating the product backlog at this level ensures that detailed planning aligns with the overall project vision and release goals. It empowers the team to self-organize and manage their workload, supporting agile principles of autonomy and collaboration.

While the project dashboard (A) provides status reporting, the release map (C) focuses on higher-level release planning, and OKRs (D) relate to strategic objectives, these are not the central focus of the team planning workshop.

PRINCE2 Agile promotes team planning workshops as essential forums for translating business priorities into actionable, manageable work for delivery teams.

Agile Foundation guidance clearly identifies Scrum as an iterative and timeboxed approach to product delivery, making option A the correct answer. Scrum is built around fixed-length iterations called sprints, which are typically one to four weeks long. These timeboxes create a regular cadence for planning, development, review, and improvement, enabling teams to deliver usable increments of a product frequently and predictably.

Scrum emphasizes iterative delivery by breaking complex work into smaller, manageable pieces that can be completed within a sprint. Each sprint begins with planning, where the team selects work from the product backlog, and ends with a review and retrospective. This structure supports frequent inspection of both the product and the team’s way of working, allowing for continuous adaptation based on feedback and learning. Agile Foundation documents highlight that timeboxing is a key mechanism in Scrum, helping teams focus, limit work in progress, and reduce risk.

Option B, Kanban, is not timeboxed. Kanban focuses on continuous flow, visualizing work, and limiting work in progress rather than delivering in fixed iterations. Option C, the Agilometer, is an assessment tool used to evaluate suitability and risks of Agile adoption, not a delivery approach. Option D, Lean, is a broader philosophy focused on eliminating waste and optimizing value flow; while it can influence Agile delivery, it is not inherently iterative and timeboxed in the way Scrum is.

Agile Foundation materials stress that Scrum’s iterative and timeboxed nature supports transparency, predictability, and early value delivery. By delivering small increments regularly, teams can gather feedback early, reduce uncertainty, and adapt priorities as needs change. This makes Scrum particularly effective in environments where requirements evolve and learning is essential.

The Agilometer is a diagnostic tool used within PRINCE2 Agile to assess the agility maturity and identify risks associated with adopting or operating in an iterative and agile environment. It helps teams and organizations evaluate their current agile capabilities, cultural readiness, and potential challenges that may impact project delivery.

The Agilometer highlights risk areas such as resistance to change, lack of agile skills, unclear roles, or insufficient governance adaptation. By providing a structured assessment, it enables proactive risk management and targeted improvements to reduce uncertainties inherent in iterative approaches.

Other artifacts like the project backlog (A) track requirements, the risk management approach (C) defines the method of managing risks but does not specifically identify iterative risks, and the Definition of Done (D) clarifies completion criteria rather than risks.

The Agilometer supports continuous improvement and risk mitigation aligned with PRINCE2’s risk and quality practices, ensuring agile projects remain viable and controlled.