SAFe-Agilist Exploring Lean Portfolio Management Practice Question

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

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

• ✗

  Allow the initiative to proceed to the 'Analyze' state, provided it is small in size.

  Why it's wrong here

  Allowing the initiative to bypass the business case requirement violates the established portfolio policy. Size does not exempt an initiative from governance. Exceptions undermine the integrity of the Portfolio Kanban and can lead to unvetted work consuming capacity that should be reserved for strategic, well-justified enterprise initiatives.

• ✓

  Move the initiative back to the Funnel and request a completed business case.

  Why this is correct

  The policy clearly states that a business case is required for the review process. Returning the initiative to the funnel enforces this rule and ensures that all stakeholders understand the necessity of justification. This preserves the flow of high-value work and maintains the integrity of the portfolio governance process.

• ✗

  Update the policy to remove the requirement for a business case to speed up flow.

  Why it's wrong here

  Arbitrarily removing policy requirements to expedite work is a reactive measure that compromises governance. While speed is important, it must be balanced with the need for informed investment decisions. Removing the requirement for a business case effectively hides the economic rationale for the initiative, increasing financial risk.

• ✗

  Ignore the missing document because the Strategic Theme Alignment is clearly visible.

  Why it's wrong here

  Strategic alignment alone is insufficient; a business case is necessary to justify the cost and effort. Ignoring the policy makes the governing framework meaningless. Lean Portfolio Management relies on both strategic alignment and economic justification to ensure that the organization is not only doing the right things but doing them affordably.