SSM Supporting ART Events 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.

• ✗

  Ignore the low votes and proceed with the majority's decision.

  Why it's wrong here

  Ignoring low votes undermines the entire purpose of the confidence vote and creates a culture where risks are hidden rather than addressed. This approach leads to unrealistic plans and likely failure during the PI, as the concerns that led to the low vote will eventually manifest as real problems.

• ✓

  Facilitate a discussion to address the concerns of those who voted low.

  Why this is correct

  Facilitating a discussion allows the person with the concern to explain their reasoning to the rest of the train and leadership. This often reveals a missing dependency or an unaddressed risk, allowing the ART to make the necessary adjustments to the plan and ultimately reach a higher level of confidence.

• ✗

  Ask the Release Train Engineer to override the vote and move forward.

  Why it's wrong here

  Asking the RTE to override the vote is a violation of Agile principles and the self-organizing nature of ARTs. The vote represents the collective wisdom of the people doing the work, and forcing a commitment through authority will not resolve the underlying technical or logistical issues that caused the low confidence.

• ✗

  Immediately start re-planning the entire PI for all teams.

  Why it's wrong here

  Re-planning the entire PI is usually a last resort and may not be necessary if the concerns are localized. The Scrum Master should first aim to address the specific issues raised by those who voted low, which might involve minor adjustments to a few team plans rather than a complete restart.