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 ensure that assurance activities are independent and objective

  Why this is correct

  PRINCE2 assigns assurance to a role separate from the Project Manager so that reviews of the project's viability, progress and risks are performed independently. This separation prevents self-review bias, giving the Project Board objective evidence on which to base continued-investment decisions.

• ✗

  To allow the Project Manager to focus on user requirements

  Why it's wrong here

  User requirements fall to the Senior User, not the Project Manager, so assurance separation does not free the Project Manager for that. It exists so assurance can monitor viability, standards and risks independently of the manager being assured. It tempts because role separation superficially appears to redistribute stakeholder-facing duties.

• ✗

  To reduce the workload of the Project Manager

  Why it's wrong here

  Reducing workload is a by-product, not the purpose; assurance is about independent oversight of the Project Manager's work. It tempts because splitting responsibilities does spread effort, and workload relief is a real benefit in large projects where one manager cannot cover everything.

• ✗

  Because PRINCE2 requires a separate person for every role

  Why it's wrong here

  PRINCE2 permits one person to hold multiple roles, so no rule demands a separate individual per role. The separation exists to give assurance independence from the Project Manager's delivery pressures. It tempts because role separation sounds like mandatory segregation of duties, which some governance frameworks do impose.