PRINCE2-Agile-Foundation Exam Dumps - PRINCE2 Agile Questions and Answers

Agile Foundation guidance explains that the purpose of the agile enablement workshop is to identify, assess, and plan for risks associated with Agile adoption, making option C the correct answer. This workshop is a structured activity designed to help organizations and project teams understand how well Agile ways of working fit their specific context and what challenges may arise when adopting Agile approaches.

The agile enablement workshop focuses on readiness rather than delivery execution. It examines factors such as organizational culture, governance expectations, stakeholder engagement, team capability, leadership support, and external constraints. By discussing these areas openly, participants can identify potential barriers to Agile adoption, assess their impact, and agree on actions to reduce or manage those risks. This proactive approach supports informed decision-making and avoids unrealistic expectations about Agile.

Option A, risks associated with project delivery, relates more to traditional project risk management practices. Option B, team delivery risks, focuses narrowly on team-level execution issues rather than adoption. Option D, enterprise agility risks, applies at a broader organizational transformation level and goes beyond the typical scope of an agile enablement workshop, which is usually project- or initiative-focused.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that Agile adoption is not risk-free and should be approached thoughtfully. The agile enablement workshop helps ensure that Agile is tailored appropriately rather than applied mechanically. It supports alignment between Agile teams and governance structures, clarifies where flexibility is possible, and highlights where controls are required. By identifying and planning for adoption risks early, organizations increase the likelihood of successful Agile implementation while preserving the core values of adaptability, collaboration, and value-driven delivery.

Agile Foundation guidance, aligned with PRINCE2 and PRINCE2 Agile, explains that the managing product delivery process is where agreement on the requirements for the delivery of specialist products is necessary, making option D the correct answer. This process focuses on the interface between project management and the delivery teams, ensuring that work is clearly understood, authorized, executed, and accepted.

Managing product delivery is concerned with agreeing what specialist products are to be produced, the quality expectations they must meet, and how and when they will be delivered. This agreement typically takes the form of work packages or similar delivery agreements. These clarify requirements, acceptance criteria, constraints, and reporting expectations so that delivery teams can work with confidence and autonomy. Agile Foundation documents emphasize that clarity at this point is essential to avoid misunderstandings, rework, and delays.

Option A, initiating a project, establishes the overall project approach, governance, and high-level requirements, but it does not agree detailed requirements for specialist product delivery. Option B, starting up a project, is an early process focused on ensuring the project is viable and worth initiating; it does not involve detailed delivery agreements. Option C, controlling a stage, focuses on monitoring progress, handling issues, and ensuring work stays within tolerances, rather than agreeing delivery requirements.

Agile Foundation materials highlight that managing product delivery supports Agile ways of working by enabling empowered teams to self-organize within clearly defined boundaries. By agreeing requirements upfront for each delivery increment, teams gain clarity on what “done” looks like while still retaining flexibility in how they achieve it. This process ensures that specialist products meet agreed quality standards and are delivered in line with project objectives.

By formally agreeing the requirements for specialist product delivery within the managing product delivery process, organizations balance governance and agility, ensuring transparency, accountability, and effective value delivery.

Agile Foundation guidance explains that the risk practice is concerned with identifying, assessing, and managing uncertainty in a structured and proactive way. One of the specific ways this practice is applied in Agile and PRINCE2 Agile contexts is by identifying Agile adoption risks using the Agilometer, making option A the correct answer.

The Agilometer is a diagnostic tool designed to assess how suitable Agile approaches are for a particular project or environment. It examines factors such as organizational culture, stakeholder engagement, governance requirements, team capability, and delivery constraints. By highlighting areas of risk related to Agile adoption, the Agilometer enables teams and leaders to make informed decisions about how Agile should be tailored and what mitigations are needed. This aligns directly with the purpose of the risk practice, which is to reduce uncertainty and protect value.

Option B, trading to handle emerging changes, relates to scope and prioritization flexibility rather than risk management itself. While trading can reduce risk indirectly by controlling scope, it is not a primary application of the risk practice. Option C, using an objectives and key results framework, focuses on goal-setting and performance measurement, not risk identification or assessment. Option D, identifying criteria in the Definition of Done, supports quality management rather than risk management.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that Agile does not eliminate risk; instead, it makes risk visible and manageable through early feedback, incremental delivery, and structured assessment. The risk practice ensures that uncertainties are understood and addressed continuously throughout the lifecycle. By using tools such as the Agilometer, organizations can anticipate challenges in Agile adoption and take proactive steps to manage them. This supports effective governance while preserving Agile’s flexibility, ensuring that Agile is applied in a way that is both realistic and sustainable.

Agile Foundation guidance often explains Agile concepts using the “Agile Onion” model, which shows how different layers of Agile build upon one another. Within this model, principles provide the core guidelines that help teams understand the purpose behind Agile practices, making option D the correct answer. Principles act as a bridge between high-level values and practical methods, explaining why certain ways of working are encouraged.

The Agile Onion typically places mindset at the center, followed by values, then principles, and finally practices, techniques, and processes on the outer layers. While practices describe what teams do and processes describe how work flows, principles explain the intent that guides those actions. They help teams make informed decisions when situations change or when standard practices do not fit the context. By understanding principles, teams can adapt their practices while still remaining aligned with Agile thinking.

Option A, processes, focus on structured sequences of activities and are concerned with execution rather than purpose. Option B, mindset, represents underlying beliefs and attitudes, which shape behavior but do not explicitly provide guidance on how or why specific practices are used. Option C, values, define what is important, such as collaboration or customer focus, but they do not give enough direction on how to translate those values into action.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that principles are essential for sustainable Agile adoption. They enable teams to move beyond mechanical “doing Agile” and toward thoughtful “being Agile.” When teams understand the principles behind practices, they are better equipped to tailor their approach, respond to change, and apply Agile effectively in different environments. Principles ensure consistency of intent while allowing flexibility in execution, which is fundamental to Agile success.

Delegation poker is a collaborative game used to define and clarify decision-making authority within teams. It helps teams agree on who has the power to make decisions for specific areas, from the team level to senior management. Using cards representing different levels of delegation, team members discuss and align expectations, ensuring clarity and reducing conflicts.

This technique fosters transparency, shared ownership, and empowerment, which are critical for agile teams operating under PRINCE2 governance. It also helps balance autonomy and control, supporting the principle of manage by exception.

Other options: a team skills matrix documents competencies, personas represent user archetypes for design, and magic estimation is a sizing technique — none focus on decision authority.

Delegation poker aligns well with PRINCE2 Agile’s emphasis on defined roles and empowered teams.

Trading/swapping is a technique used within the issues practice to manage and resolve conflicts or competing priorities by negotiating trade-offs. For example, scope items, resources, or deadlines may be traded or swapped between stakeholders to reach agreements that keep the project on track.

This collaborative negotiation supports flexible, pragmatic issue resolution, aligning with agile values of collaboration and customer focus. It enables project teams to balance competing demands while maintaining progress and business justification.

Objectives and key results (B) are goal-setting tools, refactoring (C) is a technical practice for code improvement, and delegation poker (D) is about decision-making authority — none specifically target issue resolution.

Trading/swapping aligns with PRINCE2’s controlled management of issues and agile’s collaborative problem-solving approach.

Agile Foundation guidance, aligned with PRINCE2 and PRINCE2 Agile, explains that the closing a project process is primarily used to formally accept the project product, making option C the correct answer. This process ensures that the project has delivered what was agreed, that acceptance criteria have been met, and that the project can be closed in a controlled and orderly manner.

The closing a project process confirms that all products have been completed, approved, and handed over to the appropriate operational or business teams. Formal acceptance of the project product is critical because it provides clarity that delivery is complete and that responsibility for the product has transitioned from the project to ongoing operations or use. Agile Foundation documents emphasize that even in Agile environments, clear closure and acceptance are essential to good governance and benefit realization.

Option A, controlling the link between the project manager and the delivery team, relates to the managing product delivery process, not closing a project. Option B, ensuring the project is viable, is the purpose of the continued business justification principle and is reviewed throughout the project lifecycle, not just at closure. Option D, ensuring focus remains on delivering the stage’s products, aligns with the controlling a stage process, which operates while work is still ongoing.

Agile Foundation materials highlight that closing a project is more than an administrative step. It also includes confirming that benefits management responsibilities are handed over, lessons learned are captured, and stakeholders agree that the project objectives have been met. In Agile and PRINCE2 Agile contexts, this formal closure provides confidence to senior management that investment has delivered its intended outcomes.

By formally accepting the project product, the closing a project process ensures clarity, accountability, and a clean transition from project delivery to operational use, reinforcing disciplined governance while remaining compatible with Agile delivery approaches.