AgilePM-Foundation VCE Exam Download

Focus on Benefits: Highlighting the benefits of the change makes the desired end state more attractive, increasing buy-in and reducing resistance. This aligns with the Beckhard and Harris change formula, where the perceived benefits of change must outweigh the dissatisfaction with the status quo and the cost of change.

Other Options:

B: Burning platforms address urgency but don’t directly enhance desirability.

C and D: These are practical measures but don’t necessarily increase desirability.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Change Formula Framework: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 6, Section 6.5.

In Agile Project Management (AgilePM/DSDM), the control philosophy recognizes that you cannot fix time, cost, quality, and features simultaneously. Governance is achieved by fixing time and cost (and protecting quality through standards and the Definition of Done) while flexing scope using MoSCoW prioritization. This ensures predictability of delivery cadence and budget, while allowing the team to vary the amount of functionality delivered to meet the agreed constraints. Hence, some contingency must exist in at least one of the four variables—most commonly features—so that the project can respond to emerging information without compromising delivery dates or overspending. The AgilePM Handbook explicitly states: “It is unrealistic to expect all four… can be fixed and controlled… allow flexibility in at least one.” This approach enables incremental delivery, continuous negotiation of scope, and controlled change, ensuring that value is maximized within the agreed time and cost boundaries while maintaining quality. Therefore, the correct completion is “at least one of these variables.”

The purpose of the Consolidation phase in a structured Timebox is to tie up any loose ends related to Evolutionary Development. This phase involves finalizing all outstanding work, ensuring that the deliverables meet the required quality standards, and preparing the product for acceptance and deployment. It is a critical phase for addressing any minor issues that may have arisen during development and ensuring that the Timebox objectives have been fully achieved.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (paraphrased from AgilePM governance guidance):

AgilePM’s financial governance relies on artifacts that demonstrate continuing business justification, predictable control, and informed decision-making. Core project artifacts include the Feasibility Assessment (early viability and value assessment), the Foundations Summary (establishes the Business Case, scope, approach, plans, and controls), and the Project Review Report (evidence-based assessments of progress, benefits, and risks). These directly support budget stewardship, investment decisions, and release planning. A Sprint Review Record is a Scrum team-level event output focused on inspecting increments and adapting the Product Backlog; it is not a defined AgilePM project artifact nor specifically a financial governance instrument. While insights from reviews inform governance, the formal artifacts tied to AgilePM’s project-level financial control are exemplified by options A, C, and D—hence B is the correct “NOT” choice.