APMG-International AgilePM-Foundation - Agile Project Management (AgilePM v3) Foundation Exam v3 update

Statement 1: Incorrect. Engaging people in change is complex and requires tailored strategies. It’s not a simple or routine task.

Statement 2: Incorrect. Change situations vary greatly, and no single formula works universally. Agile emphasizes context-specific approaches.

Key AgilePM Concepts Referenced:

Engagement Strategies: AgilePM Handbook, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

In Agile Project Management, product development is primarily concerned with the evolving solution/product—its outcomes, user value, and the means to achieve those outcomes through iterative delivery. Guidance emphasizes shaping features, quality attributes, and acceptance criteria so each increment is fit for purpose. While product work certainly happens in timeboxes, the explicit stewardship of time-based drivers (milestones, budgets, governance checkpoints, wider stakeholder scheduling) sits mainly in project management. AgilePM distinguishes the project context (business case, governance, roadmap, release planning) from the product-focused work (defining and building valuable increments). Hence statement 2 accurately reflects the heart of product development: “focus on what the product is… and how to achieve that.” Statement 1 maps more closely to project-level planning and coordination responsibilities that ensure the environment, cadence, and constraints enable delivery. Agile practice uses timeboxing and MoSCoW prioritization to protect time/cost/quality, but these mechanisms belong to project/delivery management rather than defining the essence of product development. Therefore, only statement 2 is true.

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.

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.

The DSDM process can indeed be configured and calibrated to cater for a range of projects, from those requiring light governance to those needing stronger governance1. This flexibility allows the DSDM process to be tailored to the specific needs of the project, ensuring that the right balance between control and agility is achieved1.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (paraphrased from Agile Project Management guidance):

Agile thinking emphasizes customer value, empirical evidence, collaboration, and transparency. Option A reflects progressive elaboration and just-in-time refinement—good agile practice. Option B suggests a typical, lightweight cadence for readiness (often the Sprint prior), which is acceptable when driven by context and team capacity rather than rigid rule. Option C captures the essence of flow through small, frequent, validated increments. Option D, however, bypasses value-based prioritization, team forecasting, and collaborative decision-making by selecting the next Sprint’s work purely on sponsor preference. Agile approaches (e.g., MoSCoW prioritization, product goals, acceptance criteria) rely on shared, objective value measures, not unilateral authority, to maximize outcomes. Therefore, D does not demonstrate agile thinking.

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

AgilePM’s MoSCoW prioritization is always applied within a defined timeframe (e.g., a release or timebox). A requirement can be a Must Have for a specific delivery window while being a Should/Could when viewed across the whole product roadmap. Timeboxing, dependency considerations, and the need to deliver a coherent, usable increment by a certain date mean that priority is inherently time-contextual. While budget and resources influence overall planning, AgilePM fixes time and cost to provide predictability and flexes scope to protect quality; thus, the most legitimate driver for a requirement’s priority to change is the timeframe to which MoSCoW is applied. As delivery horizons shift (e.g., near-term release vs. later release), the same requirement’s priority may be re-appraised to ensure the Business Case and Product/Release Goals are met. Therefore, Different timeframe is the correct reason that explains variations in backlog priority.

The Project Manager is responsible for the delivery of the project from Foundations through to Deployment1. This role involves high-level coordination of the project, ensuring that both business and technical delivery aspects are managed effectively from the initial phases through to the final deployment1.

In a DSDM project, contingency is typically managed by varying the features to be delivered6. This approach aligns with the DSDM principle of delivering the most critical work first and using the MoSCoW prioritization to adjust the scope of delivery as needed.