PMP Practice Question: Business Environment: strategy and project benefits
Your agile project has experienced a drop in sprint velocity for three consecutive sprints. The team cites increasing technical debt and unclear requirements. As the project manager, what is the most effective first step?
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
✓
Conduct a root cause analysis in a retrospective with the team
The PM should facilitate a retrospective to identify the root causes and collaboratively develop action items. This aligns with agile principles of continuous improvement.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Conduct a root cause analysis in a retrospective with the team
Why this is correct
A drop in sprint velocity is a symptom, not the root problem itself. The retrospective is a core agile event specifically designed for the team to inspect its past sprint and adapt its future approach. Conducting a root cause analysis (e.g., using techniques like the 5 Whys or Fishbone diagrams) within this collaborative setting empowers the team to identify systemic issues, process inefficiencies, or external impediments affecting their performance, leading to sustainable improvements.
- ✗
Reduce the sprint backlog to a manageable size
Why it's wrong here
Reducing the sprint backlog might temporarily alleviate pressure or make the current sprint achievable, but it is a reactive measure that fails to address *why* the velocity dropped in the first place. This action treats the symptom (overcommitment or inability to complete work) rather than the underlying cause, which could be anything from technical debt, skill gaps, external dependencies, or unclear requirements. Without understanding the root cause, the problem is likely to recur in future sprints.
- ✗
Increase the sprint duration to give the team more time
Why it's wrong here
Increasing sprint duration, for example from two weeks to three or four, fundamentally alters the rhythm of an agile project and delays the crucial feedback loop for inspecting and adapting. While it might give the team more time to complete the current sprint's work, it does not resolve the underlying issues causing the velocity drop. This approach risks masking inefficiencies, postponing problem identification, and reducing the frequency of learning opportunities, potentially leading to larger problems accumulating.
- ✗
Replace the underperforming team members
Why it's wrong here
Replacing team members is an extreme and often counterproductive measure that rarely addresses the systemic issues contributing to a velocity drop. Such an action can severely damage team morale, disrupt established team dynamics, and lead to a loss of institutional knowledge. Furthermore, it shifts blame from potential process or environmental factors to individuals, without first attempting to understand or resolve the actual impediments affecting the team's collective performance.
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 →
Same concept, more angles
3 more ways this is tested on PMP
These questions test the same concept from different angles. Work through them to make sure you can recognise it however the exam phrases it.
Variation 1. In an agile project, the team's velocity has dropped across three consecutive sprints. The project manager suspects that technical debt is causing slowdowns. What should the PM do?
medium- A.Replace the underperforming team members
- ✓ B.Facilitate a retrospective to identify impediments and create an action plan
- C.Increase the sprint duration to give the team more time
- D.Report the velocity drop to the sponsor immediately
Why B: Facilitating a retrospective allows the team to openly discuss the causes of the velocity drop, including technical debt, and collaboratively create an action plan to address it. Option A is incorrect because replacing team members does not address underlying issues. Option C is incorrect because increasing sprint duration may mask the problem without solving it. Option D is incorrect because immediate escalation to the sponsor bypasses the team's problem-solving process.
Variation 2. In an agile project, the team's velocity has dropped for three consecutive sprints. What should the project manager do FIRST?
easy- A.Ask the team to work overtime to catch up
- B.Add more team members to increase capacity
- ✓ C.Facilitate a retrospective to identify the root causes and address them
- D.Reduce the sprint scope to match the current velocity
Why C: The PM should investigate the root cause of the velocity drop before taking action. Option A is wrong because asking the team to work overtime can lead to burnout and does not address the underlying issue. Option B is wrong because adding more team members can disrupt team dynamics and may not immediately improve velocity. Option D is wrong because reducing scope without understanding the cause may hide problems and not solve the root issue.
Variation 3. In an agile transformation initiative, the project manager notices that the team's velocity has dropped significantly over the last three sprints. The team cites unclear requirements and frequent interruptions from stakeholders. The project manager also notes that the product owner has been absent from sprint planning and review meetings. What should the project manager do first?
hard- ✓ A.Schedule a meeting with the product owner and the project sponsor to discuss the importance of the product owner's role and its impact on velocity.
- B.Implement a stricter definition of 'done' and enforce it during sprint reviews.
- C.Add more buffer time to future sprint backlogs to compensate for the low velocity.
- D.Escalate to the PMO to replace the product owner.
Why A: The correct first step is to address the root cause: the product owner's absence, which leads to unclear requirements and stakeholder interruptions. Option A directly involves the product owner and sponsor to reinforce the product owner's critical role in agile. Option B (stricter definition of done) does not address the absence or requirement issues. Option C (adding buffer) is reactive and does not solve the underlying problem. Option D (escalating to replace) is premature without first discussing the issue with the product owner and sponsor.
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.