CAPM Agile Frameworks and Methodologies Practice Question
An Agile team consistently completes only about 70% of the planned work each sprint. Which action is most likely to improve the team's ability to meet commitments?
⚠ Common exam trap
CAPM often tests the misconception that adding resources or buffers solves delivery problems; the trap is choosing a capacity or process workaround instead of addressing the underlying estimation and granularity issue.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Break down user stories into smaller, more granular items.
When a team consistently completes only about 70% of planned work, the most likely cause is that user stories are too large or poorly understood, leading to inaccurate estimates and incomplete work. Breaking stories into smaller, more granular items improves estimation accuracy, increases transparency, and allows the team to finish more items within a sprint, thereby improving their ability to meet commitments. This is a core Agile practice for improving predictability.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Break down user stories into smaller, more granular items.
Why this is correct
Smaller stories reduce estimation error and allow work to finish within a sprint, directly addressing the 70% completion shortfall. Granular items surface hidden dependencies and partial progress earlier, so the team's forecast aligns with actual velocity rather than optimistic planning assumptions.
- ✗
Increase the team size to add more capacity.
Why it's wrong here
Adding people increases coordination overhead and onboarding drag without addressing why the team over-commits relative to its demonstrated velocity. It is tempting because extra capacity appears to raise throughput, and it would suit a genuinely under-resourced team whose workload exceeds its sustainable capacity.
- ✗
Add a buffer to the sprint backlog for unexpected work.
Why it's wrong here
Padding the sprint backlog with buffer items hides the forecasting error and inflates planned work, so the team still over-commits against its true capacity. It is tempting because buffers absorb variability in plan-driven schedules, and that would suit a predictive project managing uncertainty through contingency reserves.
- ✗
Reduce the sprint length to one week.
Why it's wrong here
Shortening the sprint changes cadence, not the ratio of planned to completed work; the same over-commitment persists per iteration. It is tempting because shorter iterations tighten feedback, and that would suit a team needing faster inspection when its forecasting is already accurate.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This CAPM question is part of Courseiva's 451-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official PMI exam blueprint
This CAPM practice question is part of Courseiva's free PMI certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CAPM exam.