Process — Managing Technical Aspects →easyMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped

PMP Process — Managing Technical Aspects Practice Question

During a sprint retrospective, the team identifies that the daily standups have become too long (45 minutes instead of 15). Several team members feel the standups are unproductive. As the Scrum Master, what should you do?

⚠ Common exam trap

It's easy for candidates to think canceling or reducing the frequency of standups (Option B or D) is a valid time-saving measure, but the PMP exam expects adherence to the Scrum framework where daily standups are mandatory and must be kept within the 15-minute timebox through coaching, not elimination.

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

✓

Coach the team to keep standups within the 15-minute timebox and focus on the three key questions

The Scrum Master’s primary responsibility is to coach the team on Scrum practices, including enforcing the 15-minute timebox for daily standups and ensuring they focus on the three key questions (what was done, what will be done, and impediments). This directly addresses the root cause—lack of discipline and focus—rather than bypassing the event or escalating unnecessarily. By coaching, the team learns to self-organize and improve their process, which is a core agile principle.

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 the issue to the project sponsor for guidance
Why it's wrong here
Escalating a team-level process issue, such as standup effectiveness, to the project sponsor is inappropriate. The Scrum Master's role is to facilitate the team's self-organization and remove impediments, which includes coaching on agile practices. Involving the sponsor for an internal team process problem bypasses the Scrum Master's accountability and the team's autonomy, which are core tenets of agile project management.
✗
Mandate that standups be held only twice a week
Why it's wrong here
Mandating a reduction in Daily Scrum frequency to twice a week without team consensus undermines the principles of self-organizing teams and continuous inspection. Daily Scrums are a critical event for the Development Team to synchronize activities, identify impediments, and adapt the Sprint Backlog daily. Arbitrarily reducing this frequency diminishes transparency and the opportunity for timely course correction, potentially hindering the team's ability to achieve the Sprint Goal.
✓
Coach the team to keep standups within the 15-minute timebox and focus on the three key questions
Why this is correct
The Scrum Master's primary responsibility includes coaching the team on Scrum theory and practices. Guiding the team to adhere to the 15-minute timebox and focus on the three key questions (What did I do yesterday? What will I do today? Any impediments?) directly addresses common dysfunctions in Daily Scrums. This approach helps the team maintain focus, improve efficiency, and reinforce the purpose of the event, aligning with agile principles of continuous improvement and self-management.
✗
Cancel daily standups entirely to save time
Why it's wrong here
Canceling Daily Scrums entirely is a severe misstep that eliminates a fundamental agile ceremony crucial for team synchronization and progress inspection. Daily Scrums provide a vital platform for the Development Team to assess their progress toward the Sprint Goal, identify new impediments, and adjust their plan for the next 24 hours. Their complete removal would severely compromise transparency, collaboration, and the team's ability to self-organize and respond to changes effectively, directly contradicting agile values.

Go deeper

PMP Process — Managing Technical Aspects Practice Question

Why each option matters

Option-by-option breakdown

Related to this question