Process — Managing Technical Aspects →hardMultiple Select

PMP Process — Managing Technical Aspects Practice Question

Your agile project has experienced a significant drop in velocity for two consecutive sprints. The team is blaming unclear requirements from the product owner, while the product owner claims the team is not collaborating enough. As the scrum master, which THREE actions should you take to address the situation?

⚠ Common exam trap

A common misconception is that a scrum master should impose solutions (like mandatory pairing or adding buffers) rather than facilitating the team's self-organization and addressing root causes through coaching and retrospectives.

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 product owner on techniques for refining the product backlog and writing clear user stories

Option C is correct because the product owner's unclear requirements are a root cause of the velocity drop, and the scrum master should coach the product owner on backlog refinement and writing clear, INVEST-compliant user stories with acceptance criteria so the team can estimate and deliver effectively. Option D is correct because the scrum master serves the team by coaching it toward self-organization and improved collaboration, which directly addresses the product owner's complaint and helps the team resolve impediments without top-down mandates. Option E is correct because the sprint retrospective is the scrum event designed to inspect how the last sprint went and identify root causes of the velocity decline, enabling the team to create actionable improvement items. Option A is not appropriate because adding buffer time merely hides the problem and inflates estimates rather than addressing the underlying causes of reduced velocity. Option B is not appropriate because mandating pairing on all tasks removes the team's self-organization and autonomy, which is contrary to scrum principles and unlikely to fix the collaboration issue.

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

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

✗
Add buffer time to the next sprint to account for uncertainty
Why it's wrong here
Agile frameworks prioritize continuous improvement and transparency over adding contingency time. Introducing "buffer time" into a sprint artificially inflates sprint duration or capacity, masking the true causes of velocity fluctuations rather than addressing them directly. This approach contradicts the agile principle of sustainable pace and empirical process control, which relies on predictable sprint lengths and direct problem-solving. It fails to investigate and resolve the underlying issues contributing to uncertainty or the velocity drop.
✗
Mandate that the team must collaborate more by pairing on all tasks
Why it's wrong here
Mandating specific collaboration techniques, such as pairing on all tasks, fundamentally undermines the agile principle of self-organization. Agile teams are empowered to determine the most effective ways to achieve their sprint goals and improve their processes, including how they collaborate. Such a directive from outside the team removes their autonomy and can lead to resentment or reduced ownership, rather than fostering genuine, effective collaboration that emerges organically from team needs.
✓
Coach the product owner on techniques for refining the product backlog and writing clear user stories
Why this is correct
A significant drop in velocity often stems from unclear or poorly defined work items, leading to rework, delays, and increased uncertainty during sprint execution. By coaching the Product Owner on effective backlog refinement techniques and the creation of clear, INVEST-compliant user stories, the team gains a better understanding of requirements. This proactive measure reduces ambiguity, minimizes mid-sprint scope creep, and allows the development team to estimate and execute work more efficiently, directly impacting velocity positively.
✓
Coach the team on self-organization and effective collaboration techniques
Why this is correct
A drop in velocity can indicate internal team dynamics or process inefficiencies, such as communication breakdowns or suboptimal task distribution. Coaching the team on principles of self-organization empowers them to collectively identify and implement improvements to their workflow, decision-making, and task allocation. Furthermore, enhancing effective collaboration techniques directly improves throughput, reduces impediments, and fosters a more cohesive environment, ultimately leading to a more consistent and higher velocity.
✓
Facilitate a retrospective focused on identifying root causes of the velocity drop
Why this is correct
The retrospective is the designated agile event for the team to inspect its past sprint and adapt its future approach. Facilitating a retrospective specifically focused on the velocity drop allows the entire team to collaboratively analyze contributing factors, identify root causes, and propose actionable improvements to their processes, tools, or interactions. This empirical approach ensures that solutions are team-driven and directly address the underlying issues, fostering continuous improvement and sustainable velocity recovery.

Visual reference

Go deeper

PMP Process — Managing Technical Aspects Practice Question

Why each option matters

Option-by-option breakdown

Related to this question