APMG-International AgilePM-Foundation Dumps

DSDM recognizes two styles of Timebox: a structured Timebox and a free format Timebox1. The structured Timebox is the original DSDM-style Timebox, which provides a standard, repeatable internal structure to a Timebox. The free format Timebox allows more flexibility

Instrumental Success Factors (ISFs) in DSDM are crucial as they position projects for a successful outcome. ISFs are the critical elements that must be in place for a DSDM project to succeed. They provide a foundation for effective project management and delivery, ensuring that all necessary conditions are met to support the project's objectives and deliverables.

In Scrum, a Product Backlog Item (PBI) is considered “ready” when it is sufficiently understood, appropriately sized, and clear enough that the Developers believe they can complete it within a single Sprint. PBIs that meet this threshold are suitable for selection during Sprint Planning because they have enough clarity of value, acceptance criteria, and implementation approach to be forecast as “Done” by the end of the Sprint. Readiness is typically achieved through ongoing Product Backlog refinement, where the Product Owner and Developers collaborate to add detail, order, and size. The key test is not whether an item appears on the backlog, is captured as a user story, or is merely chosen in the meeting; rather, it is whether the item is small and transparent enough to be completed within the Sprint’s timebox and to meet the Definition of Done. Therefore, option B best reflects the standard: a PBI is ready when it is small enough—and clear enough—to be completed (“Done”) within one Sprint.

The Foundations phase is when it is established how quality will be assured4. This phase builds upon the preliminary investigation from the Feasibility phase to establish a fundamental understanding of the business rationale for the project and how the development and delivery of the solution will be managed, including quality assurance measures4.

The DSMD (Dynamic Systems Development Method) principle of “Build incrementally from firm foundations” emphasizes the importance of having a solid understanding of the project’s foundation before proceeding with incremental development. This principle ensures that each increment is built upon a stable base, which supports the overall project integrity and success.

Statement 1: Correct. Force Field Analysis identifies driving and restraining forces for change, helping to address barriers and resistance.

Statement 2: Incorrect. The analysis should be a collaborative effort involving stakeholders, not solely created by the change manager.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Force Field Analysis as a Tool: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 7, Section 7.2.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (verified, paraphrased from AgilePM principles):

AgilePM promotes incremental and iterative delivery, aiming to deploy usable increments early and often. Regular deployment and demonstration validate fitness for purpose, expose risks sooner, and provide empirical feedback for planning. Early release of increments also tests assumptions about value with real users and stakeholders, informing prioritization (e.g., MoSCoW) and shaping subsequent increments. This approach supports continuous learning, sharper benefits focus, and stronger financial governance, because funding and scope decisions can be based on evidence from working solution slices rather than predictions. Hence, both statements accurately reflect agile project delivery.

The Terms of Reference is identified as a governance product in DSDM because it may be used for purposes such as the prioritization of a project within a portfolio2. It provides a high-level definition of the overarching business driver and top-level objectives of the project.

Certainty in Neuroscience: The brain seeks predictability and stability, which is supported by delivering change in small, incremental stages. This approach aligns with Agile's iterative and incremental delivery, providing clarity and reducing stress for individuals undergoing change.

Other Options:

B: Delegated decision-making relates to empowerment but does not directly address certainty.

C: Group social events foster connection, not certainty.

D: Public praise boosts morale but doesn’t satisfy the need for predictability.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Iterative and Incremental Delivery: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 3, Section 3.6.

Principle 1 – Focus on the Business Need suggests that every decision taken during a project should be viewed in light of the overriding project goal. This principle ensures that all decisions align with the main objective of delivering what the business needs, thus maintaining a clear focus on achieving the project’s goals.

Within the Solution Development team, it is not required for all members to be multi-skilled experts1. While a diverse set of skills is beneficial, DSDM emphasizes collaboration and the effective use of individual strengths rather than expecting every team member to be an expert in all areas1.

Statement 1: Incorrect. Non-verbal communication refers to gestures, facial expressions, and body language, which cannot be captured in written form.

Statement 2: Correct. Actions, such as behavior during change or leading by example, can convey powerful messages without verbal communication.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Non-Verbal Communication in Engagement: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 4, Section 4.4.

Comprehensive and Detailed 150–300 words Explanation (paraphrased from Agile Manifesto & AgilePM alignment):

The Agile Manifesto states four value pairings that guide agile delivery. Three relevant to this question are: “Individuals and interactions over processes and tools,” “Customer collaboration over contract negotiation,” and “Responding to change over following a plan.” These emphasize people-centric collaboration, close partnership with customers, and adaptability through iterative inspection and adaptation. The fourth statement in the options is incorrect: the Manifesto values “working software over comprehensive documentation,” not the reverse. AgilePM aligns with these values by encouraging active business involvement, timeboxing, incremental delivery, and MoSCoW prioritization—mechanisms that maximize collaboration, transparency, and the ability to change course based on real feedback. Documentation, plans, and contracts still exist but are framed to enable collaboration and change rather than constrain them. Therefore, the correct set of values among the options is 1, 2, and 3, making A correct.

Comprehensive and Detailed 150 to 300 words Explanation From Exact Extract of Agile Project Management (paraphrased):

AgilePM’s MoSCoW prioritization is always applied within a defined timeframe (e.g., a release or timebox). A requirement can be a Must Have for a specific delivery window while being a Should/Could when viewed across the whole product roadmap. Timeboxing, dependency considerations, and the need to deliver a coherent, usable increment by a certain date mean that priority is inherently time-contextual. While budget and resources influence overall planning, AgilePM fixes time and cost to provide predictability and flexes scope to protect quality; thus, the most legitimate driver for a requirement’s priority to change is the timeframe to which MoSCoW is applied. As delivery horizons shift (e.g., near-term release vs. later release), the same requirement’s priority may be re-appraised to ensure the Business Case and Product/Release Goals are met. Therefore, Different timeframe is the correct reason that explains variations in backlog priority.

Active Listening: The change curve requires empathetic and effective communication to understand concerns, address resistance, and guide individuals through emotional responses to change. Active listening is a vital skill in this process.

Other Options:

Time management: Important but not specific to the emotional aspects of change.

Negotiation: Relevant for resolving conflicts but secondary to listening during change.

Decision-making: Necessary for leadership but not for guiding individuals emotionally.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Engagement and Support: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 6, Section 6.4.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (concise, policy-compliant):

Scrum defines four events within the Sprint: Sprint Planning, Daily Scrum, Sprint Review, and Sprint Retrospective. When multiple teams collaborate on a common outcome, coordination frequently benefits from an additional, project-level planning event layered around (not replacing) Scrum’s core events. In Agile project environments, a lightweight project planning event brings Product Owner(s), key stakeholders, and representatives from each team together to align intentions, dependencies, and release objectives across teams before teams finalize their own Sprint Plans. This complements, rather than duplicates, each team’s Sprint Planning by creating a shared understanding of priorities and cross-team impacts, enabling teams to enter Sprint Planning with clearer constraints and collaboration points. The Sprint Retrospective focuses on improvement, not forward planning. Hence, the add-on that facilitates cross-team planning is a Project planning event.

Statement 1: Incorrect. Diverse teams tend to take longer to make decisions due to differing perspectives and approaches. However, this trade-off leads to more thorough and creative decision-making, which is a recognized strength of diverse teams.

Statement 2: Incorrect. Members of diverse teams often require time to align on communication styles, goals, and processes. Effective collaboration in diverse teams is developed through trust-building and active engagement, as outlined in Agile team practices.

Why Diverse Teams Matter in Agile:

Agile emphasizes collaboration and innovation, which are enhanced by diverse teams. However, the process of building trust and understanding takes time. AgilePM recommends fostering inclusivity and addressing conflicts constructively to harness the strengths of diverse teams.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Building Effective Teams: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.

Trust and Transparency in Teams: Chapter 4, Section 4.6.

In agile practice, a User Story is often framed by the “3 Cs”: Card, Conversation, and Confirmation. The Card captures just enough of the requirement to spark dialogue. The Conversation is the collaborative discussion among Product Owner (or Customer/Business), Developers, and other stakeholders that elaborates details and clarifies intent. The Confirmation element records the specific, testable acceptance criteria that will be used to verify the story delivers the intended outcome for its beneficiary (the user or customer). These acceptance criteria translate stakeholder expectations into objective checks—often articulated as scenarios or examples—that determine whether the story is fit for purpose and “Done.” Agile Project Management approaches (including AgilePM/DSDM and Scrum-aligned practices) emphasize that acceptance criteria belong with the story as its Confirmation, because that is what allows the team to assert value delivery, guide development and testing, and anchor Sprint Review demonstrations. Therefore, the appropriate place to record the concrete measures by which a user can successfully use the delivered capability is the Confirmation section of the User Story.

Discovery: The Continuous Change Management Cycle starts with understanding the current situation, challenges, and opportunities. Discovery ensures that subsequent steps are informed and targeted.

Other Options:

A: Ideas come after discovery.

B: Prioritization occurs after potential solutions are identified.

D: Action follows the planning and prioritization phases.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Continuous Change Management Cycle: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 6, Section 6.6.

Agile principles assert that the most efficient and effective method of conveying information within a development team is face-to-face conversation. This emphasizes rich, synchronous communication—co-location where possible, or high-fidelity remote collaboration (video, whiteboarding, pair/mob work) when not. Face-to-face dialog accelerates shared understanding, reduces rework caused by misinterpretation, and shortens feedback loops so issues are surfaced and resolved quickly. While transparency, collaboration, and continuity are vital cultural qualities, the principle specifically calls out face-to-face as the preferred communication mode. AgilePM operationalizes this through facilitated workshops, daily coordination, frequent reviews/demos, and visible artifacts that support immediate discussion. Even in distributed teams, the intent is preserved by using communication tools and practices that approximate face-to-face bandwidth, ensuring decisions are grounded in common understanding and enabling rapid inspection and adaptation.

Dissatisfaction with the Status Quo: The change formula includes dissatisfaction as a key driver for change. Without sufficient dissatisfaction, the motivation to change is diminished.

Other Options:

B, C, and D: These factors, while important, are not explicitly part of the Beckhard and Harris change formula.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

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

AgilePM distinguishes between increments in terms of what is actually delivered to stakeholders. The emphasis is on a Solution—the integrated outcome that delivers business value—not merely isolated technical outputs. As delivery progresses, teams create Solution Increments that accumulate into a releasable Product (the broader, user-facing capability). This distinction helps align day-to-day development with business outcomes: every increment should be a cohesive slice of the evolving solution that is demonstrably usable or verifiable, while the Product view ensures that increments collectively support release goals and benefits realization. AgilePM’s focus on MoSCoW prioritization and timeboxing supports this by ensuring each Solution Increment contains the right mix of Must/Should/Could features to satisfy acceptance and maintain momentum. In practice, reviews showcase the Solution Increment’s usability to business representatives, while release planning considers how these increments roll up into Product evolution. Therefore, the two types associated with what is delivered are best captured by Solution and Product, making option A the fit with AgilePM terminology and intent.

The Post-Project phase in AgilePM is crucial for evaluating the project’s success in terms of the business benefits realized3. It is conducted after the project is completed and focuses on assessing whether the expected benefits outlined at the start of the project have been achieved

AgilePM advocates collaboration as a core value, stressing “working together towards a shared goal.” Competence in collaboration grows in cultures that remove fear, encourage learning, and align on purpose. A no-blame culture fosters psychological safety so issues surface early and teams can inspect and adapt without defensiveness. Asking for help is encouraged through active business involvement and empowered, multi-disciplinary teams; it reduces decision latency and improves quality. Setting clear goals—e.g., business outcomes, Definition of Done, and prioritized objectives—creates shared focus, enabling constructive cooperation and trade-offs. By contrast, rewarding individual efforts tends to optimize locally, fragment accountability, and discourage knowledge sharing; AgilePM favors team-based achievement and collective ownership. Agile guidance repeatedly links effective collaboration with facilitation, frequent reviews/demonstrations, and visible progress measures that are team-centered, not individualized. Therefore, the options that genuinely build collaboration are 2, 3, and 4, making D correct.

Statement 1: Incorrect. While accountability is important, it should be addressed constructively, not by drawing attention to failures in a punitive way.

Statement 2: Incorrect. Constructive conflict is essential for innovation and problem-solving. Avoiding conflict entirely can lead to unresolved issues and reduced performance.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Team Dynamics and Conflict Management: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 5, Section 5.5.

Comprehensive and Detailed 150–300 words Explanation (paraphrased from AgilePM/DSDM guidance):

In AgilePM, the Business Sponsor is the project’s ultimate decision-maker and the role accountable for ensuring continued business justification. This includes owning the investment decision, securing and sustaining funding, and maintaining senior-level commitment to the business opportunity. A lack of commitment represents a threat to the viability of the Business Case; managing and mitigating that risk sits squarely with the Sponsor. The Sponsor establishes clear objectives, champions the initiative across the organization, removes high-level impediments, and ensures that governance supports timely decisions. While the Business Visionary articulates and safeguards the solution vision and value outcomes, that role does not control organizational commitment or funding at the enterprise level. Similarly, Business Advisors provide specialist input but do not own commitment or investment risk. Therefore, where commitment to the business opportunity is wavering or unclear, the Business Sponsor is responsible for intervening—reconfirming the Business Case, rallying stakeholder support, and aligning investment, scope and timescales—so the project remains justified and deliverable.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (paraphrased from DSDM/AgilePM principles):

One of AgilePM’s eight guiding principles is “Never compromise quality.” Quality is fixed and protected: teams define the required level up-front via acceptance criteria, Definition of Done, and non-functional requirements, then manage scope with MoSCoW prioritization to ensure the agreed quality bar is always met. Time and cost are typically fixed through timeboxing and team sizing, while scope flexes to safeguard quality and predictability. This principle prevents trading away essential quality under delivery pressure and ensures increments are genuinely “fit for purpose.” Options A and C are good values but are not stated AgilePM principles, and D contradicts the ethos—agile does commit to quality by making it explicit, measurable, and non-negotiable. Therefore, B is correct.

Statement 1: Correct. Rich communication channels, such as face-to-face conversations or video calls, are necessary for active engagement as they allow for two-way interaction and emotional connection.

Statement 2: Correct. Leaner channels, like emails or memos, are appropriate when the message is straightforward and unlikely to be misinterpreted.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Effective Communication Channels: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.

In a DSDM project, contingency is typically managed by varying the features to be delivered6. This approach aligns with the DSDM principle of delivering the most critical work first and using the MoSCoW prioritization to adjust the scope of delivery as needed.

The missing word in the sentence is “Champion”. The Business Sponsor is known as the project Champion because they are committed to the solution and the delivery approach34. This role is crucial as it provides the strategic direction and controls the funding/budget for the project1.

Emotional Process: Transition, as per Bridges’ model, refers to the psychological adjustment individuals go through when adapting to change. It’s not about the change itself but how people internally process the transition.

Other Options:

A and D: These relate to the external processes of implementing change.

C: This overlaps with transition but is incomplete as a definition.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Bridges’ Transition Model: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 6, Section 6.3.

Productivity Dip: A temporary drop in productivity is common when employees are being trained on new processes or systems. This cost is critical to account for in planning and managing change effectively.

Other Options:

Safety & Wellbeing: Relates to physical and emotional health, not productivity.

Reputational: Refers to external perception of the organization.

Opportunity: Refers to lost potential from alternative courses of action.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Assessing Change Impact: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 7, Section 7.3.

The DSDM process can indeed be configured and calibrated to cater for a range of projects, from those requiring light governance to those needing stronger governance1. This flexibility allows the DSDM process to be tailored to the specific needs of the project, ensuring that the right balance between control and agility is achieved1.

AgilePM distinguishes clearly between internal delivery roles (the project team and its immediate governance) and the wider set of external stakeholders who affect, constrain, or benefit from the solution. Developers are part of the internal Solution Development Team—hence not external stakeholders. By contrast, Regulatory Authorities are external parties that impose compliance obligations and quality constraints; they influence acceptance and release but are outside the project team structure. Customers (and users) are also external stakeholders: they receive value, validate usability, and provide feedback, yet they are not members of the delivery team itself. Employees who sit outside the formal project team (e.g., business staff impacted by change, operational personnel, support and sales teams) are treated as external stakeholders because they are affected by the solution and provide input, but they don’t hold delivery roles. AgilePM’s organization model embeds active business involvement through defined roles inside the team, while also recognizing a broader environment of external interests that must be engaged and managed. Therefore, the items that best fit the “external stakeholder” classification are 1 (Regulatory Authorities), 3 (Customers), and 4 (Employees); 2 (Developers) belong to the internal delivery team.

Scrum supplies the core framework (roles, events, artifacts) for empirically building products, but it is intentionally lightweight. AgilePM (based on DSDM) complements Scrum by offering a well-tested pool of practices, tools, and techniques that strengthen day-to-day delivery and governance without altering Scrum’s essence. Typical enhancements include MoSCoW prioritization to manage variable scope, timeboxing to protect cadence, facilitated workshops and modeling to accelerate shared understanding, and explicit roles for business involvement to improve decision flow. AgilePM also provides guidance on project-level controls—such as business cases, incremental release planning, and benefits focus—that sit outside Scrum’s product-delivery scope. For a Scrum Master, this combination is valuable: Scrum remains the engine of iterative delivery, while AgilePM offers practical methods to refine backlog refinement, clarify acceptance criteria, manage dependencies, and support predictable delivery against time and cost constraints. Thus, the pairing gives Scrum Masters a richer toolkit to coach teams, align stakeholders, and handle real-world project contexts where governance, prioritization, and incremental release structures are needed—precisely what option B describes.

Action Phase: Breaking change actions into smaller, manageable tasks happens during the Action step, where detailed plans are implemented. This ensures smoother execution and tracking of progress.

Other Options:

Discovery: Focuses on understanding the current situation.

Ideas: Involves generating potential solutions.

Prioritization: Helps decide which tasks or changes to focus on.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Continuous Change Management Cycle: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 6, Section 6.6.

The responsibility of the Business Ambassador in AgilePM is to provide day-to-day detail of the requirements during Timeboxes. This role involves representing the interests of the business within the project team, ensuring that the evolving product meets the business needs. The Business Ambassador works closely with the development team to clarify requirements, provide feedback, and make decisions promptly to keep the project on track.

In an agile context, the Scrum Master embodies servant leadership, coaching the team and the organization to apply Scrum effectively. Their accountability is to establish and uphold Scrum’s empirical approach—transparency, inspection, and adaptation—by ensuring events, artifacts, and values are understood and used as intended. They remove impediments that hinder flow, facilitate collaboration with stakeholders, and help the team focus on outcomes guided by the Sprint and Product Goals. Crucially, the Scrum Master does not manage scope, schedule, or approve the technical solution; those duties lie with product ownership and technical leadership. Nor do they “maximize value” directly—that accountability belongs to the Product Owner. Instead, the Scrum Master improves the system of work so the team can deliver value predictably and sustainably, fostering continuous improvement and adherence to agreed quality standards (e.g., Definition of Done). This aligns with option A and distinguishes it from the governance or authority-centric responsibilities implied by the other options.

When initially creating MoSCoW priorities in AgilePM, the primary focus is on Timebox priorities. This approach ensures that each Timebox (a fixed period during which specific tasks must be completed) has clear and prioritized objectives. The MoSCoW method (Must have, Should have, Could have, Won't have this time) helps the team to deliver the most critical features within the given timeframe, thereby optimizing the value delivered in each iteration. This prioritization ensures that essential functionalities are completed first, making the project adaptable and resilient to changes.

DSDM acknowledges that change is inevitable and that projects operate within a changing world5. The methodology is designed to embrace change and harness its benefits, rather than resist it.

When using the Iterative Development technique, each cycle should include Thought, Action, and Control. These components ensure that the development process is systematic and reflective. Thought involves planning and considering the next steps, Action is the implementation of those plans, and Control is the evaluation and adjustment based on feedback and results. This iterative cycle helps in refining the product incrementally and ensures continuous improvement.

The PAQ is a living risk and alignment aid used to expose approach-based risks—culture, leadership, governance expectations, stakeholder availability, decision latency, technical readiness—and to agree mitigations. AgilePM positions the PAQ for early use and for periodic re-use at key checkpoints. As the Foundations phase completes, the project has clarified goals, governance, roles, and planning baselines; revisiting the PAQ then helps validate that the agreed approach actually fits the now-explicit context and that residual risks have owners and responses. If Foundations is later revisited (for example, after significant change in scope, funding, or organization), the PAQ should be revisited as well to re-check assumptions and tune mitigations. Treating the PAQ as a one-off document would miss its purpose: to sustain a fit-for-purpose approach as conditions evolve. Therefore, both statements are true.

Comprehensive and Detailed 150–300 words Explanation (paraphrased from Scrum & AgilePM practice):

When multiple teams build a single product within one project, effective backlog ownership and value alignment are critical. Scrum practice—and AgilePM when combined with Scrum—supports one Product Owner for the product, even when several teams deliver increments in parallel. A single Product Owner preserves a single ordered Product Backlog, unified priorities, and consistent acceptance criteria, minimizing conflicts and dependency churn. Each team may have its own Scrum Master to optimize facilitation and impediment removal locally, but the essential management mechanism for cross-team coherence is shared product ownership (one Product Owner) paired with lightweight cross-team planning and frequent integration. Splitting into two separate projects (with separate roles) for one product typically fragments value flow and complicates governance. Likewise, mandating different Business Visionaries per team dilutes accountability for the product outcome. Hence, the preferred and most effective approach is that both teams share the same Product Owner to maintain a single value and prioritization voice.

Cognitive Rigidity: This represents a fixed mindset, where individuals resist new ways of thinking or acting. Neuroscience highlights that flexibility is key to adapting to change.

Other Options:

A: Routine seeking reflects comfort in familiarity but isn’t a fixed mindset.

B: Emotional reactions are part of normal responses to change.

D: Short-term focus relates to decision-making, not fixed thinking.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Managing Resistance Through Neuroscience: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 6, Section 6.7.

AgilePM’s MoSCoW guidance sets effort-based guardrails, not simple counts of requirements. A common rule of thumb is: Must Haves ≤ ~60% of available effort, Should Haves ≤ ~20%, and Could Haves ≤ ~20%, with Won’t Haves excluded from the current delivery timeframe. This ensures sufficient contingency (mainly in Coulds) to absorb change while protecting time, cost, and quality. Statement 2 aligns with that guidance: allocating around 20% of the available effort to Could requirements provides the “give” needed inside timeboxes and releases. Statement 1 is misstated: it refers to the number of requirements and equates the Minimum Usable Subset with a percentage of items; AgilePM speaks in terms of effort, not item count. Hence, only statement 2 is true.