Free APMG-International AgilePM-Foundation Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 4

Dissatisfaction with the Status Quo: The change formula includes dissatisfaction as a key driver for change. Without sufficient dissatisfaction, the motivation to change is diminished.

Other Options:

B, C, and D: These factors, while important, are not explicitly part of the Beckhard and Harris change formula.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Change Formula Framework: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 6, Section 6.5.

AgilePM sits at the project level, framing delivery within business justification, governance, stakeholder engagement, risk, funding, and release management. This is a wider context than the mechanics of product development, which concentrates on evolving the product incrementally (requirements, design, build, test) using frameworks like Scrum. AgilePM aligns product delivery with organizational goals via a Business Case, clear roles, stage/phase control, and timeboxing, while enabling adaptive scope through prioritization. Product development is a vital subset, but project management additionally addresses cross-team dependencies, external stakeholders (e.g., operations, compliance), transition to live service, and benefits enablement. Options B, C, and D either overstate comparative complexity, misstate product development’s focus, or confuse product delivery with governance structures. The accurate statement is that project management operates in a broader organizational and governance context than product development—exactly what AgilePM was designed to harmonize with agile delivery methods.

Action Phase: Breaking change actions into smaller, manageable tasks happens during the Action step, where detailed plans are implemented. This ensures smoother execution and tracking of progress.

Other Options:

Discovery: Focuses on understanding the current situation.

Ideas: Involves generating potential solutions.

Prioritization: Helps decide which tasks or changes to focus on.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Continuous Change Management Cycle: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 6, Section 6.6.

The Agile Manifesto values “working software over comprehensive documentation,” but does not reject documents; it promotes fit-for-purpose documentation that adds value. AgilePM echoes this with lightweight, high-value artifacts (e.g., Business Case, Foundations summary, acceptance criteria) to support clarity and governance “without excessive bureaucracy.” Therefore (1) is true: create documents when they add value. (3) is true: documents must be visible and understood by those who use them to collaborate and decide; transparency is essential. (4) is also true: high-level documents early (vision, scope boundaries, approach) support planning, alignment, and later refinement. (2) is false: agile does not prohibit contracts; it values customer collaboration over contract negotiation, yet recognizes contracts may be necessary and useful when framed to enable change. Consequently, the correct set is 1, 3, and 4, i.e., C.

When initially creating MoSCoW priorities in AgilePM, the primary focus is on Timebox priorities. This approach ensures that each Timebox (a fixed period during which specific tasks must be completed) has clear and prioritized objectives. The MoSCoW method (Must have, Should have, Could have, Won't have this time) helps the team to deliver the most critical features within the given timeframe, thereby optimizing the value delivered in each iteration. This prioritization ensures that essential functionalities are completed first, making the project adaptable and resilient to changes.

Agility delivers the most benefit when uncertainty is high—when the problem is fuzzy, assumptions are unproven, stakeholders are still learning, and change is inevitable. In these contexts, iterative and incremental delivery, frequent feedback, and tight collaboration reduce risk by turning unknowns into knowns quickly. Timeboxing, continuous prioritization (e.g., MoSCoW), and demonstrable increments enable evidence-based decisions, allowing the team to pivot as understanding improves. Conversely, when the problem and solution are truly stable and well defined, predictive approaches can work adequately because variability is low. Likewise, heavy upfront research or a fully designed/contracted “optimal” solution implies a desire for certainty that may not exist; agile avoids over-investing in speculative plans by validating value early. Therefore, agility is most needed when discovery is paramount and adaptability is crucial—when the problem is unclear and change is inevitable.

The AgilePM lifecycle typically includes Pre-Project, Feasibility, Foundations, Evolutionary Development/Realization, Deployment, and Post-Project (benefits). Feasibility is designed as a lightweight, optional phase to confirm there is a sensible case to proceed before deeper investment. In some contexts—when viability is already established, or scope and constraints are straightforward—Feasibility may be skipped or greatly abbreviated, moving directly to Foundations, where the approach, governance, and baselines are established. By contrast, Foundations is expected for alignment and control, and Realization (timeboxed delivery) is where the solution is built; these are not optional if you are proceeding with delivery. Thus, Feasibility is the optional phase.

In a free format Timebox, reviews should take place: B. Throughout the body of the Timebox3.

Principle 1 – Focus on the Business Need suggests that every decision taken during a project should be viewed in light of the overriding project goal. This principle ensures that all decisions align with the main objective of delivering what the business needs, thus maintaining a clear focus on achieving the project’s goals.

In Agile Project Management (AgilePM/DSDM), the control philosophy recognizes that you cannot fix time, cost, quality, and features simultaneously. Governance is achieved by fixing time and cost (and protecting quality through standards and the Definition of Done) while flexing scope using MoSCoW prioritization. This ensures predictability of delivery cadence and budget, while allowing the team to vary the amount of functionality delivered to meet the agreed constraints. Hence, some contingency must exist in at least one of the four variables—most commonly features—so that the project can respond to emerging information without compromising delivery dates or overspending. The AgilePM Handbook explicitly states: “It is unrealistic to expect all four… can be fixed and controlled… allow flexibility in at least one.” This approach enables incremental delivery, continuous negotiation of scope, and controlled change, ensuring that value is maximized within the agreed time and cost boundaries while maintaining quality. Therefore, the correct completion is “at least one of these variables.”