Exam PMI-ACP topic 1 question 32 discussion

Overall product is clarified by the product owner.

for option C: Retrospectives are valuable for continuous improvement, but this option delays addressing the immediate need for understanding. so I go with the D

I thought A is correct answer

It is B. "The story map for MVP would help the team to understand how the stories fit into the product." The question does not ask for any vision. It asks simply how they understand to fit them into the product.

Please be sure it is not the vision to be asked, instead, it asked how the tasks and the stories fit into the overall product. Story Mapping or User Story Mapping is a technique used in product discovery: outlining a new product or a new feature for an existing product. Therefore, it is B. Do you know how the PO is able to explain that? Vision is more simple to explain rather than how they fit into the product. It needs more detail and the story map is ideal to explain that.

D - correct A - waste B - MVP is not about the product vision, but strategy how to fulfill the vision C - retro is about how last sprint went, focused discussing on tasks, but not enough to capture the vision

D is the correct answer.

It is not (C)more details of tasks or (A) the iteration goal can share product vision to the team. I will go for D or B, however, (B)story map is not good enough to know the product vision , hence (D)there is the product roadmap in the release plan to know it.

It is not about (C)more details of tasks or (A) iteration goal to know the product vision. I will go for D or B, however, (B)story map is not good enough to know the product vision , hence (D)there is the product roadmap in the release plan to know the product vision.

It is not about (C)more details of tasks or (A) iteration goal to know the product vision. I will go for D or B, however, (B)story map is not good enough, product map is better, hence (D)

i vote B

I choose A

I would go for B. The story map for MVP would help team to understand how the the stories/tasks fit into the product.

I would go for A.

(D) does not make sense to me. The developers might understand the product vision but not how their actual tasks fit into it. Also the development team does not care about the release plan. (C) This should be addressed in the retrospective. The question is whether this is enough. It seems the team needs immediate guidance. (B) Not sure how this would help (A) If the iteration goal was well drafted, then this would help. The question is whether the goal is meaningful. In a real world I would go for (A) and (C). Here I have to pick one. Not sure.

B is also make sense. SM is responsible to communicate the vision with the team before each iteration/sprint, not PO.