PRINCE2F People: organizations, teams, and leadership Practice Question

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

• ✗

  To reduce the workload of the Project Manager.

  Why it's wrong here

  Separation exists so the Project Board receives independent verification of the Project Manager's performance, not to lighten anyone's workload. It tempts because assurance does absorb monitoring tasks, but PRINCE2 frames the split around independence and the three stakeholder interests, not capacity relief.

• ✓

  To ensure that the Project Board has independent and objective advice.

  Why this is correct

  Project Assurance provides the Project Board with independent, objective advice on whether the project remains viable, so separating it from the Project Manager prevents self-review of the manager's own performance and products. This satisfies the stem's constraint by preserving the board's independent oversight of the project.

• ✗

  To align with the PRINCE2 principle of continued business justification.

  Why it's wrong here

  Continued business justification concerns the ongoing viability of the business case, which the Project Board owns; separation of Project Assurance exists to give the board independent verification of the Project Manager's work. It tempts because assurance does feed justification, but that principle is not the reason for the split.

• ✗

  To allow the Project Manager to focus on delivery while Assurance handles quality.

  Why it's wrong here

  Project Assurance monitors all performance aspects — cost, timescale, quality, scope, risk and benefits — against the project's baselines, not quality alone. It tempts because quality review activity is visible assurance work, yet the role's independence from the Project Manager is the actual reason for separation.