Process — Managing Technical Aspects →mediumMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped

PMP Process — Managing Technical Aspects Practice Question

During a sprint retrospective, the team identifies that their velocity has dropped significantly in the last two sprints. What should the scrum master do FIRST?

⚠ Common exam trap

Candidates often confuse a velocity drop with a performance problem, leading them to choose a quick fix (like adding people or reducing scope) instead of following the Agile principle of inspect and adapt through root cause analysis.

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

✓

Facilitate a discussion to identify root causes and create an action plan

The correct first action is to facilitate a root cause analysis and create an action plan because the sprint retrospective is the prescribed Agile ceremony for continuous improvement. The Scrum Master's role is to coach the team to self-organize and address impediments, not to impose solutions. Jumping to staffing or scope changes without understanding the underlying technical or process issues violates the empirical process control principle of transparency.

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

✓
Facilitate a discussion to identify root causes and create an action plan
Why this is correct
During a Sprint Retrospective, the primary objective is indeed continuous improvement. Facilitating a discussion to identify the underlying root causes of any identified issues, rather than just superficial symptoms, is crucial for effective problem-solving. This process empowers the team to collaboratively develop concrete, actionable plans to implement improvements in subsequent sprints, embodying the 'inspect and adapt' principle of Scrum.
✗
Add more team members to increase velocity
Why it's wrong here
Adding more team members to an existing project, especially mid-sprint or in response to perceived low velocity, often invokes Brooks's Law, which states that 'adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.' New members require significant onboarding, diverting existing team members' time and increasing communication overhead. This typically leads to a temporary decrease in productivity and velocity before any potential long-term benefits might materialize, failing to address immediate performance concerns.
✗
Reduce the sprint backlog to improve velocity metrics
Why it's wrong here
Reducing the sprint backlog solely to artificially inflate velocity metrics is a counterproductive practice that undermines the principles of transparency and empiricism in Scrum. This action does not address the actual underlying issues causing low velocity, such as technical debt or inefficient processes. Instead, it creates a false sense of improvement, masking real problems and preventing the team from genuinely inspecting and adapting to achieve sustainable progress.
✗
Encourage the team to work faster in the next sprint
Why it's wrong here
Simply encouraging the team to 'work faster' in the next sprint is a superficial and unsustainable approach that fails to address systemic impediments. This directive often leads to increased pressure, potential burnout, and a decline in work quality, rather than genuine efficiency gains. Without understanding and resolving the root causes of current performance, such a request is unlikely to yield lasting positive results and contradicts the principle of sustainable pace.

Go deeper

PMP Process — Managing Technical Aspects Practice Question

Why each option matters

Option-by-option breakdown

Related to this question