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 comply with regulatory requirements

  Why it's wrong here

  PRINCE2 separates the roles to preserve the independence of assurance from day-to-day delivery management, preventing the Project Manager from marking their own work. Regulatory compliance is not the driver; the split exists so the Project Board receives objective progress information. It is tempting because separation of duties is a common governance control, but PRINCE2 mandates it regardless of any regulatory obligation.

• ✗

  To reduce the cost of the project

  Why it's wrong here

  The separation provides independent scrutiny of the Project Manager's outputs; cost reduction is unrelated and could even increase overhead. It tempts because avoiding duplicated effort appears economical, but PRINCE2 accepts the added assurance cost to prevent the manager marking their own work.

• ✓

  To ensure independent oversight of the project

  Why this is correct

  Project Assurance must evaluate the project objectively against business, user and supplier interests. Separating it from the Project Manager prevents self-review, since the manager cannot independently scrutinise their own work, delivering the independent oversight the stem requires.

• ✗

  To allow the Project Manager to focus on team management

  Why it's wrong here

  Separation exists so assurance is independent of the manager being assured; focusing on team management does not require a distinct role. It tempts because a Project Manager genuinely does manage teams, but that workload could be handled without splitting assurance away from the manager.