Free APMG-International AgilePM-Foundation Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

Agile principles assert that the most efficient and effective method of conveying information within a development team is face-to-face conversation. This emphasizes rich, synchronous communication—co-location where possible, or high-fidelity remote collaboration (video, whiteboarding, pair/mob work) when not. Face-to-face dialog accelerates shared understanding, reduces rework caused by misinterpretation, and shortens feedback loops so issues are surfaced and resolved quickly. While transparency, collaboration, and continuity are vital cultural qualities, the principle specifically calls out face-to-face as the preferred communication mode. AgilePM operationalizes this through facilitated workshops, daily coordination, frequent reviews/demos, and visible artifacts that support immediate discussion. Even in distributed teams, the intent is preserved by using communication tools and practices that approximate face-to-face bandwidth, ensuring decisions are grounded in common understanding and enabling rapid inspection and adaptation.

Statement 1: Correct. Force Field Analysis identifies driving and restraining forces for change, helping to address barriers and resistance.

Statement 2: Incorrect. The analysis should be a collaborative effort involving stakeholders, not solely created by the change manager.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Force Field Analysis as a Tool: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 7, Section 7.2.

Storming Stage: During this stage, team members test and challenge assumptions, roles, and processes. This is essential for resolving conflicts and building stronger foundations for collaboration.

Other Stages:

Forming: Initial stage with minimal conflict.

Performing: High-functioning stage with clear roles.

Adjourning: Focuses on reflection and closure.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Team Development Models: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 5, Section 5.4.

Statement 1: Correct. Actively responding to contributions fosters a sense of inclusion and appreciation, which is crucial for engagement and trust during change.

Statement 2: Incorrect. Decisions during change often involve emotional as well as rational considerations, as people’s behaviors and attitudes are not purely logical.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Engaging Stakeholders Emotionally: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.

The Foundations phase is when it is established how quality will be assured4. This phase builds upon the preliminary investigation from the Feasibility phase to establish a fundamental understanding of the business rationale for the project and how the development and delivery of the solution will be managed, including quality assurance measures4.

AgilePM’s control philosophy fixes Time (via timeboxing) and Cost (via stable team size and duration), and protects Quality (it must never be compromised). To keep delivery predictable while remaining responsive to change, contingency is placed in Scope, i.e., Features. Using MoSCoW prioritization, Must Haves are capped, while Shoulds and Coulds provide the controlled flexibility needed to absorb change, manage uncertainty, and still meet deadlines and budgets at the agreed quality level. This approach turns scope into the adjustable “knob,” enabling teams to make informed trade-offs as learning emerges, without eroding the Definition of Done or slipping time/cost constraints. Hence, contingency belongs in Features.

AgilePM emphasizes lightweight but effective planning that maintains control without bureaucracy. Core planning concepts include timeboxing (fixed-duration delivery windows), MoSCoW prioritization (flexing scope to protect time/cost/quality), incremental and iterative delivery (frequent demonstrations and review), and rolling-wave planning (planning at multiple horizons). Together these techniques ensure transparency, predictable cadence, and early value while avoiding heavyweight documentation or rigid stage gates. Plans are living forecasts refined through continuous feedback and empirical evidence from delivered increments. Governance focuses on outcomes and fitness for purpose rather than exhaustive upfront detail. This is why the guidance often summarizes that AgilePM planning “keeps projects on track,” enabling teams to respond to change, surface risks early, and align stakeholders around real progress. Options A, C, and D capture fragments of agile practice, but they understate the project-level intent. The correct completion is “projects on track.”

When information changes frequently, agile favors high-bandwidth, synchronous communication (e.g., video/teleconferences, facilitated sessions) that enables rapid clarification, shared understanding, and immediate adjustment. Static written documents become quickly outdated, encourage lag between change and consumption, and invite misinterpretation without fast feedback loops. Even email, while asynchronous, can be used for rapid, lightweight updates—but it still lacks the immediacy and richness of dialogue. AgilePM stresses visible progress, collaborative workshops, and frequent reviews to keep everyone aligned as facts evolve. Therefore, in a high-change context, a written document is typically the least effective mechanism to keep stakeholders synchronized, whereas live conversations and demonstrations better support timely inspection and adaptation.

Comprehensive and Detailed 150–300 words Explanation (paraphrased from Scrum & AgilePM practice):

When multiple teams build a single product within one project, effective backlog ownership and value alignment are critical. Scrum practice—and AgilePM when combined with Scrum—supports one Product Owner for the product, even when several teams deliver increments in parallel. A single Product Owner preserves a single ordered Product Backlog, unified priorities, and consistent acceptance criteria, minimizing conflicts and dependency churn. Each team may have its own Scrum Master to optimize facilitation and impediment removal locally, but the essential management mechanism for cross-team coherence is shared product ownership (one Product Owner) paired with lightweight cross-team planning and frequent integration. Splitting into two separate projects (with separate roles) for one product typically fragments value flow and complicates governance. Likewise, mandating different Business Visionaries per team dilutes accountability for the product outcome. Hence, the preferred and most effective approach is that both teams share the same Product Owner to maintain a single value and prioritization voice.

Comprehensive and Detailed 150 to 300 words Explanation From Exact Extract of Agile Project Management (paraphrased with Scrum alignment):

Scrum defines a small set of events within the Sprint to implement empiricism: Sprint Planning, Daily Scrum, Sprint Review, and Sprint Retrospective. Additionally, the Sprint itself is the overarching event—a fixed-length container that sets the cadence for inspection and adaptation, culminating in a usable Increment. By contrast, Sprint Goal is a commitment associated with the Sprint, guiding focus and coherence; Sprint Backlog is an artifact representing the plan for the Sprint; and Product Increment is an artifact representing the latest integrated outcome meeting the Definition of Done. Therefore, among the options, only Sprint is a Scrum Event.