APMG-International Updated AgilePM-Practitioner Exam Questions and Answers by shiloh

The correct answers are C and E .

This is a classic business availability and decision-latency risk in AgilePM. The problem is not just that Brinda is absent. The bigger issue is that the Business Visionary input is missing at a time when strategic adjustments are affecting delivery decisions . That creates a real risk of:

misalignment with the project vision,

unnecessary assumptions,

frustration in the Delivery Teams,

and costly rework.

AgilePM relies heavily on active business involvement . When a key business role becomes unavailable, the right response is to restore decision-making guidance quickly and protect the teams from working blindly on uncertain items .

Why C is correct

“Hira should engage other business stakeholders to assume Brinda Vyas ' responsibilities to ensure the Delivery Teams receives strategic guidance.”

This aligns strongly with AgilePM.

Hira, as Project Manager, should act to restore the missing business guidance by coordinating with suitable business stakeholders who can temporarily support or cover the gap. AgilePM does not encourage leaving teams without access to strategic direction. It also does not assume that work should continue normally when a key business authority is unavailable.

This response is good because it:

maintains business engagement,

reduces decision delays,

protects alignment with the vision,

and helps the Delivery Teams continue with informed guidance.

In AgilePM, if a critical role is unavailable, the project should adapt so the necessary business input remains accessible.

Why E is correct

“The Delivery Teams should focus on backlog items with clear business direction and pause tasks that require Brinda Vyas ' input until guidance is available.”

This is also very AgilePM-aligned.

It is a practical risk response that avoids reckless progress based on guesswork. Teams should keep moving where the direction is already clear, but they should avoid pushing ahead on items that depend on missing strategic clarification.

This balances:

maintaining momentum,

avoiding unnecessary delay across all work,

and reducing the risk of rework on unclear items.

That is exactly the kind of sensible, adaptive delivery behavior AgilePM supports.

Why the other options are incorrect

A. Continue increment work based on the backlog, assuming adjustments can be made when Brinda Vyas returns.

This is not a good AgilePM response because it normalizes working with outdated or incomplete strategic guidance. If recent strategic changes have not been communicated, continuing as normal increases the risk of building the wrong thing.

B. Mira Bachar and the Delivery Teams should document assumptions behind decisions and continue progress without validation.

Documenting assumptions is better than ignoring them, but continuing without validation is still too risky in this scenario. AgilePM values transparency, but it does not support knowingly progressing on uncertain strategic assumptions when better escalation and stakeholder engagement are possible.

D. Hira should escalate to Sarah Lark, the Business Sponsor, to replace Brinda Vyas with another qualified Business Visionary.

This may become necessary if the absence is prolonged or the project is materially threatened, but it is too strong as the best immediate response here. AgilePM would first look to restore business guidance through practical engagement and controlled work selection before moving to formal replacement.

AgilePM perspective

AgilePM expects:

active and timely business input,

collaborative response to risks,

continued delivery where direction is clear,

and escalation or substitution when critical decision-making is missing.

So the best way to handle this risk is to:

restore business guidance through other suitable stakeholders , and

limit work to items that have clear direction until ambiguity is resolved .

Therefore, the correct answers are:

C, E

The correct answers are C and E .

AgilePM estimation should be:

collaborative,

proportionate,

realistic,

and open to refinement.

Why C is correct

“Allow flexibility and accept uncertainty in estimates that may be refined later.”

This is central to AgilePM. Estimates are expected to evolve as understanding improves. Early estimates are not fixed promises; they are informed forecasts based on current knowledge.

Why E is correct

“Use team-based estimation techniques as collective knowledge will improve accuracy.”

This also aligns strongly with AgilePM. Estimation benefits from the combined knowledge of the team because different people understand different aspects of the work, risks, and dependencies.

Why the other options are incorrect

A is too detailed and heavy for the likely stage and context.

B is wrong because Planning Poker supports relative/team-based estimation, but not “precise” early certainty.

D is contrary to agile estimation. Estimates are not meant to be fixed and artificially precise.

So the best answers are C, E .

The correct answer is A .

In AgilePM, the business case does not depend on having a fully fixed and detailed scope from the start. Instead, it is based on:

the business need ,

expected benefits ,

viability,

and confidence that sufficient value can be delivered within agreed constraints.

Why A is correct:

It correctly explains that AgilePM focuses on goals and benefits , not exhaustive detail upfront.

It also correctly brings in MoSCoW prioritization , which helps ensure that the most important value is delivered first within fixed time and cost.

This allows flexibility in lower-priority scope while maintaining investment control.

Why the other options are incorrect:

B introduces incremental funding in a way that is not the core explanation here.

C describes a predictive, fixed-scope model rather than AgilePM.

D is too vague and does not directly explain how a business case can exist without detailed delivery certainty.

So the best answer is A .

To implement the new Must Have requirement for the coffee shop insurance product website, which includes financial transaction functionality, the Business Sponsor should take the following actions:

Selected Actions for the Business Sponsor:

B. Check the viability of the project, following the inclusion of the new Must Have requirement.

E. Assess the impact of the new Must Have requirement on the original Business Case.

B. Evaluating the project ' s viability after adding a significant new requirement is crucial. This involves analyzing whether the project can still meet its objectives within the given constraints, such as time, budget, and resources, especially when the new requirement could potentially add complexity and cost.

E. Understanding how the new requirement affects the original Business Case is essential. This involves reassessing the project ' s expected benefits, costs, and risks in light of the new functionality. It ensures that the project remains aligned with business objectives and continues to offer a viable return on investment.

Why Other Actions Are Less Suitable:

A. While ensuring adherence to relevant standards is important, it is more of a task for the technical team or a specific role such as the Technical Coordinator, rather than the primary responsibility of the Business Sponsor.

C. Sourcing and hiring specific technical expertise, such as a web developer with experience in online financial transactions, is generally a responsibility delegated to the Project Manager or relevant technical leads, not the Business Sponsor directly.

D. While communicating business changes to all interested parties is important, the specific action of explaining the implications of the business change company-wide is more likely to be a collaborative effort involving several roles, including the Business Change Manager, rather than solely the Business Sponsor ' s responsibility.