Exam PMI-ACP topic 1 question 17 discussion

The question is not asking about the solution to technical debt, but how to communicate its effect, thus C is more sense. Burndown doesn't visualize technical debt, adjusting story points is not an indication for techinal debt, Refactoring is solution for technical debt. Therefore, only C is applicable .

This is so obvious: B is the answer. Even if I had to choose another option, that'd be D. Effect of tech debt on the project is either rework or being proactive and refactoring. refactoring is a better option that takes time. this time has to be accounted for in user story estimation. That is it.

The best answer for the scenario is C. Log technical debt as an impediment. Explanation: Technical debt refers to the cost of maintaining and fixing issues that arise from taking shortcuts or not following best practices during software development. It can have a significant impact on project timelines, quality, and overall success. Therefore, it is essential to communicate its effect on the project to stakeholders. Option A, posting and discussing rises in the burn down chart, may not be effective in communicating the impact of technical debt as it only shows progress towards completing tasks and does not provide specific information about technical debt. Option B, adjusting story points to account for technical debt, may lead to inaccurate estimations and does not address the root cause of the problem. Option D, adding refactoring tasks to all stories, may be too time-consuming and may not prioritize addressing technical debt in areas where it has the most significant impact.

accumulated technical debt would be a potential risk. We need to monitor and control. If we use a 'log' as mentioned in C which is another name for 'risk register' in waterfall. this is not a practice in Agile. In Agile, burn down chart can be risk adjusted, it take care of both business value as well as risk. High risk and high business value should be at high prioritization. Therefore, I choose A

By using the sprint burn-down as a base, and simply add the time spent on the technical debt on top of the product development work. This will visibly show how much productivity is lost to break-fixes, defects, and outages and other technical debt.

The EFFECT of tech debt is additional work to be done. This work will be visible in the burndown chart. The question is NOT what to do with the tech debt. I vote A.

Visibility and awareness: Logging debt as an impediment makes it visible to everyone in the team, raising awareness of its existence and potential impact. Focus on resolution: Impediments require discussion and solutions, prompting the team to actively address the technical debt within the sprint or backlog. Prioritization: Tracking debt as impediments allows for discussion and prioritization based on its severity and impact on other stories or overall project goal

C is the Correct Answer

C = correct. It is about communicating "the effect of technical debt on the project" - which obviously is an impediment. A = Burndown chart is about the remaining work that needs to be done. B = That is not doing the Scrum master, it is the team. D = Not needed to that to all stories. And the SM is not the right person to do that, it is the team.

The question talks about the "Effect" of the technical debt, and it could be seen in the burndown chart by adding more time on top of the development work as consequence of the technical debt

Technical debt is not usually a blocker (C). I am going with A

i thik this

The agile practitioner has determined that two different team members are working on addressing the same major issue on the project. How should the agile practitioner address this?

I am going with A.

c is the answer

A is the most as SM role (C should be from DT / Development Team as DT role in daily standup).

A. Communicate