PMP Process — Managing Technical Aspects Practice Question
As a project manager in a hybrid project, you notice that the team's sprint velocity has dropped for three consecutive sprints. The team is demotivated, and stakeholders are becoming concerned about the delivery date. Which TWO actions should you take to address this situation?
⚠ Common exam trap
PMP often tests the instinct to 'fix the schedule' (cut scope, add resources, demand overtime) versus the correct servant-leadership response of investigating root cause with the team — candidates who prioritize the deadline over the people/process diagnosis pick the wrong options.
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
✓
Analyze the product backlog for signs of scope creep or unclear requirements
Option C is correct because a sustained velocity decline often stems from an inflated or poorly refined product backlog, so analyzing it for scope creep or ambiguous requirements lets the project manager remove or clarify work before it distorts estimates and throughput. Option E is correct because a sprint retrospective is the agile ceremony specifically designed to surface the root causes of a velocity drop (impediments, technical debt, process friction, team morale) and produce actionable improvements owned by the team. Option A is wrong because escalating and mandating overtime is a command-and-control response that worsens demotivation and does not address the systemic cause of declining velocity. Option B is wrong because unilaterally cutting release scope to hit a date is a premature scope decision that should follow, not precede, root-cause analysis and stakeholder collaboration. Option D is wrong because adding members mid-sprint violates the sprint's fixed scope and typically reduces short-term output due to onboarding and communication overhead (Brooks's Law).
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Escalate to the project sponsor and request the team to work overtime
Why it's wrong here
Escalating to the sponsor and immediately requesting overtime is a short-sighted, unsustainable solution that fails to address the systemic issues causing the velocity drop. While it might offer a temporary output boost, sustained overtime leads to team burnout, decreased morale, reduced quality, and ultimately lower long-term productivity. A PMP's role includes protecting the team's well-being and seeking sustainable process improvements rather than relying on temporary fixes.
- ✗
Immediately reduce the scope of the current release to meet the deadline
Why it's wrong here
Immediately reducing scope is a reactive measure that bypasses critical root cause analysis. Without understanding *why* velocity dropped, this action risks cutting valuable features, potentially diminishing the product's business value or merely masking an underlying process inefficiency. A PMP should prioritize investigation over arbitrary scope reduction, ensuring any scope adjustments are data-driven and strategically aligned.
- ✓
Analyze the product backlog for signs of scope creep or unclear requirements
Why this is correct
Analyzing the product backlog is a proactive and essential step to identify potential causes for a velocity drop, such as scope creep, poorly defined user stories, or a lack of readiness. Unclear requirements or frequently changing priorities within the backlog can lead to rework and wasted effort, directly impacting the team's ability to deliver consistently. Ensuring a well-refined and stable backlog is crucial for predictable sprint execution and maintaining velocity.
- ✗
Add more team members to the current sprint to increase output
Why it's wrong here
Adding more team members to a struggling sprint often invokes Brooks's Law, where 'adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.' This introduces significant communication overhead, requires onboarding and ramp-up time, and disrupts existing team dynamics, ultimately decreasing overall productivity in the short term rather than increasing it. It fails to address the fundamental issues causing the velocity drop and can further destabilize the team.
- ✓
Facilitate a retrospective to identify root causes of the velocity drop
Why this is correct
Facilitating a retrospective is a cornerstone agile practice for continuous improvement, enabling the team to collaboratively inspect their processes, tools, and interactions. This structured event allows the team to identify the true root causes behind the velocity drop, such as impediments, technical debt, or communication breakdowns. By collectively developing actionable improvements, the team fosters self-organization and implements sustainable solutions for future sprints.
Go deeper
Related to this question
Learn chapter
Team Building and Psychological Safety
Key term
Scrum Methodology
Scrum is a lightweight process framework that helps teams deliver complex projects in small, iterative chunks called sprints.
Key term
Sprint Retrospective
A Sprint Retrospective is a time-boxed meeting at the end of a Scrum sprint where the team reflects on their process and identifies improvements for the next sprint.
About these practice questions
One of 820 original PMP practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. 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 PMP 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 PMP exam.