PMP Process — Managing Technical Aspects Practice Question
You are managing a software development project using an Agile approach. The team consists of 8 developers and 2 testers. During the last three sprints, the team has consistently delivered about 70% of planned story points. The product owner is frustrated because key features are being delayed. The team reports that they are spending too much time fixing defects found during testing, and that the testers are a bottleneck. Upon reviewing the definition of done, you notice that unit tests are required but not always written, and integration tests are done only at the end of the sprint. What is the BEST course of action to address the root cause?
⚠ Common exam trap
Many candidates choose to add resources (Option D) or reduce scope (Option A/C) instead of addressing the process and technical practice gap—specifically, the lack of automated testing and continuous integration, which is the true root cause of the bottleneck and low velocity.
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
✓
Require that all code have unit tests before being merged, and implement continuous integration to run automated tests every few hours.
Directly addresses the root cause: the team is spending too much time fixing defects because unit tests are not always written and integration tests are deferred to the end of the sprint. By requiring unit tests before merging and implementing continuous integration (CI) with automated tests running every few hours, defects are caught earlier, reducing rework and eliminating the tester bottleneck. This aligns with Agile principles of built-in quality and early feedback, which improves velocity and 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.
- ✗
Reduce the sprint backlog size to 50% of current capacity to allow more time for testing.
Why it's wrong here
Reducing the sprint backlog size to 50% aims to provide more time for existing testing efforts, but it fails to address the fundamental issue of defects being introduced early and discovered late. While it might alleviate immediate pressure, this approach merely reduces throughput without implementing systemic improvements to prevent defects or shift quality activities earlier in the development lifecycle. It's a scope reduction strategy, not a quality improvement strategy.
- ✓
Require that all code have unit tests before being merged, and implement continuous integration to run automated tests every few hours.
Why this is correct
Requiring unit tests before code merges and implementing continuous integration are critical 'shift-left' strategies that proactively embed quality throughout the development process. Unit tests ensure individual components function correctly at the earliest stage, while continuous integration automates frequent testing, catching integration defects within hours of introduction. This approach significantly reduces the cost and effort of defect resolution by preventing issues from propagating to later, more expensive stages.
- ✗
Ask the product owner to defer non-critical features to later releases.
Why it's wrong here
Asking the product owner to defer non-critical features is a project scope management tactic that might reduce immediate workload or allow focus on higher-priority items. However, this action does not inherently improve the quality of the development process itself or prevent defects from being introduced in the remaining features. It merely reprioritizes work, leaving the underlying causes of late defect discovery unaddressed and potentially impacting future releases with the same quality challenges.
- ✗
Add two more testers to the team to increase testing capacity.
Why it's wrong here
Adding more testers primarily increases the capacity to find defects, rather than preventing their introduction or shifting quality left in the development cycle. While more testers might identify issues faster, the defects are still being created upstream and discovered late, leading to costly rework and potential bottlenecks in the development-test feedback loop. This reactive approach doesn't address the root cause of quality issues, which lies in how code is developed and integrated.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
One of 800 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 by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
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.