Exam PMI-ACP topic 1 question 128 discussion

A. Suggest pair programming during the retrospective Explanation: Skill Development: Pair programming allows the inexperienced software engineer to learn from a more experienced team member, accelerating their skill development. Knowledge Sharing: This practice promotes knowledge sharing within the team, ensuring that skills and best practices are disseminated. Quality Improvement: Pair programming can lead to higher code quality as two sets of eyes are reviewing the work, reducing the likelihood of errors. Team Collaboration: It fosters better collaboration and communication within the team, which can improve overall team dynamics and efficiency.

A. Suggest pair programming during the retrospective. If an inexperienced software engineer is identified as the source of reduced velocity, one effective way to address this issue is by suggesting pair programming during the retrospective. Pair programming involves two developers working together at a single workstation, with one writing code and the other reviewing it in real-time. This practice can help the less experienced engineer learn from their more experienced colleagues, build skills, and contribute more effectively to the team's velocity.

What the team need to do are two things: 1. Ensure that the project gets back on track 2. Help the inexperienced Engineer A & C would be the best choices. A. Suggest pair programming during the retrospective - would achieve both goals and is an Agile mindset to helping others develop. B. Ask the product owner to re-prioritize the user stories at the next retrospective - No. The stories have been prioritised by the customer and this is not the problem, C. Re-estimate the story points with team members at the next iteration planning meeting Re-estimating will make allowances for the inexperienced Engineer and could potentially bring the velocity back on track, but this doesn't actually help the engineer develop. But having said that, isn't the estimation done based on the current ability of the team? So I changed my mind and go for C D. Assign less complex user stories to the inexperienced software engineer at the next iteration planning meeting

A for quality C is correct

C = correct. A = pair programming wouldn't help in terms of velocity increasing. B = PO is accountable for the PB and only the sponsor can ask for reprioritizing not the team. C = correct. The team should re-estimate the story points based on the team's ability. D = wrong.

A is correct

A sure