PRINCE2 PRINCE2-Agile-Foundation PRINCE2 Agile Foundation (Version 2) Exam Exam Practice Test

The Progress Review Workshop is the key forum to assess the current status of the project and address challenges or issues affecting progress. It typically involves reviewing the current stage or release against plan, assessing risks, issues, and dependencies, and agreeing on corrective actions or decisions to keep the project on track.

While retrospectives (B and C) focus on reflecting and improving team practices, and team planning (A) looks ahead to upcoming work, progress reviews are focused on monitoring, control, and decision-making at the project or stage level.

This workshop aligns with PRINCE2’s principle of manage by exception, enabling timely interventions without unnecessary escalation.

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.

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.

In Agile Foundation guidance, the team coach plays a key role in supporting one or more Agile teams in adopting and improving Agile ways of working. A core responsibility of the team coach is to liaise with the agile coach, making option A the correct answer. This relationship ensures alignment between team-level coaching and organization-wide Agile adoption.

The team coach focuses primarily on the day-to-day effectiveness of the team. This includes helping the team understand Agile principles, improve collaboration, enhance communication, and continuously improve their ways of working. The agile coach, on the other hand, typically operates at a broader level, supporting multiple teams, leaders, and the organization as a whole in embedding Agile culture and practices. By liaising with the agile coach, the team coach ensures that insights, challenges, and progress at the team level are shared and addressed consistently across the organization.

Option B, liaising with the project manager, is not a primary responsibility of the team coach in Agile foundations. While coordination may occur, Agile reduces dependency on traditional command-and-control roles. Option C, liaising with the chief product owner, is also not central to the team coach role, as product ownership focuses on value and prioritization rather than team dynamics and Agile maturity. Option D, liaising with project assurance, aligns more with governance and compliance functions rather than coaching responsibilities.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that effective coaching relies on collaboration between coaching roles. The team coach provides detailed, practical feedback from the team, while the agile coach offers strategic direction, consistency, and organizational support. This collaboration strengthens Agile adoption, helps remove systemic impediments, and ensures that teams are supported both locally and at scale. By liaising with the agile coach, the team coach helps create a coherent, sustainable Agile environment focused on continuous improvement and value delivery.

Agile Foundation guidance clearly identifies Scrum as an iterative and timeboxed approach to product delivery, making option A the correct answer. Scrum is built around fixed-length iterations called sprints, which are typically one to four weeks long. These timeboxes create a regular cadence for planning, development, review, and improvement, enabling teams to deliver usable increments of a product frequently and predictably.

Scrum emphasizes iterative delivery by breaking complex work into smaller, manageable pieces that can be completed within a sprint. Each sprint begins with planning, where the team selects work from the product backlog, and ends with a review and retrospective. This structure supports frequent inspection of both the product and the team’s way of working, allowing for continuous adaptation based on feedback and learning. Agile Foundation documents highlight that timeboxing is a key mechanism in Scrum, helping teams focus, limit work in progress, and reduce risk.

Option B, Kanban, is not timeboxed. Kanban focuses on continuous flow, visualizing work, and limiting work in progress rather than delivering in fixed iterations. Option C, the Agilometer, is an assessment tool used to evaluate suitability and risks of Agile adoption, not a delivery approach. Option D, Lean, is a broader philosophy focused on eliminating waste and optimizing value flow; while it can influence Agile delivery, it is not inherently iterative and timeboxed in the way Scrum is.

Agile Foundation materials stress that Scrum’s iterative and timeboxed nature supports transparency, predictability, and early value delivery. By delivering small increments regularly, teams can gather feedback early, reduce uncertainty, and adapt priorities as needs change. This makes Scrum particularly effective in environments where requirements evolve and learning is essential.

Within Agile Foundation guidance and PRINCE2 Agile alignment, the Definition of Done (DoD) plays a critical role in supporting an iterative approach to delivery, making option C the correct answer. PRINCE2 Agile combines the governance strengths of PRINCE2 with the flexibility of Agile delivery, and iteration is central to how value is delivered incrementally. The DoD provides a shared and consistent understanding of what it means for work to be complete at the end of each iteration.

The iterative approach in PRINCE2 Agile relies on delivering small, usable increments frequently. The Definition of Done ensures that every increment meets agreed quality standards before it is considered complete. This supports transparency, predictability, and trust, which are essential for iterative delivery. Without a clear DoD, teams risk producing partially finished work that cannot be reviewed, tested, or released, undermining the benefits of iteration.

Option A is incorrect because Agile and PRINCE2 Agile emphasize continuous feedback as a core mechanism for learning and adaptation. Option B, offering predictive insights, is not a defining element of PRINCE2 Agile’s iterative approach; Agile focuses more on empirical feedback than prediction. Option D is also incorrect because frequent testing is encouraged, not reduced, in iterative Agile delivery.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that the DoD acts as a quality gate that supports incremental progress while maintaining control. It aligns delivery teams and stakeholders on expectations and ensures that each iteration produces a potentially usable output. In PRINCE2 Agile, this alignment allows teams to work autonomously within defined tolerances while still meeting governance and assurance requirements. By clearly defining what “done” means, the DoD strengthens the iterative cycle of build, review, learn, and adapt, which is fundamental to Agile and PRINCE2 Agile working together.

The project closure workshop is held to formally close the project, during which project documentation is updated to reflect the final state of the project, lessons learned are captured, and approvals are obtained. This ensures that all activities are completed, the project has delivered its intended products, and knowledge is retained for future projects or organizational learning.

Aligning teams (A) and refining release maps (D) are activities conducted earlier in the lifecycle, while benefits management (B) is usually defined during initiation and planning stages.

The PRINCE2 practices represent the essential aspects of project management that must be applied consistently from start to finish in every project. These practices cover key areas such as managing risks, issues, quality, plans, progress, and change. They provide structured guidance and tools to ensure the project remains viable, controlled, and aligned with business objectives.

While processes define the stages and flow of activities, and the people element refers to roles and skills, practices are the ongoing activities and controls embedded throughout the project lifecycle. The project context shapes how practices and processes are tailored but does not itself define the consistent elements.

This consistent application of practices supports governance, transparency, and control, critical for successful project outcomes.

Kanban uses a flow-based approach to visualize and control work in progress (WIP). It emphasizes limiting WIP to improve flow and reduce bottlenecks, with continuous monitoring via Kanban boards. This approach supports flexibility, transparency, and efficiency in managing tasks.

The Agilometer (A) measures agility, Lean (B) is a broad philosophy focusing on waste reduction, and Scrum (D) is an iterative framework but uses time-boxed sprints rather than flow-based control.

The Recommend step in issue management involves analyzing the issue and evaluating possible options to resolve it. At this stage, the project team or responsible individuals identify potential solutions, weigh their pros and cons, and recommend the best course of action to decision-makers.

Capture is the initial identification and recording of the issue, Decide involves making the final decision on the recommended solution, and Implement is the execution of the chosen resolution. Evaluating options thoroughly during the Recommend phase helps ensure informed decision-making and effective issue resolution.

This structured approach aligns with PRINCE2’s focus on proactive issue management, maintaining control and reducing risk impacts.

Agile Foundation guidance emphasizes building quality into the product from the very beginning rather than relying on late-stage inspection or escalation. When a minor quality control failure occurs during product creation, the most appropriate initial response is to revisit the development and test activities, making option C the correct answer. Agile promotes continuous quality assurance through iterative development, frequent testing, and fast feedback loops, allowing teams to correct issues as soon as they emerge.

In Agile environments, quality is a shared responsibility of the entire team. Minor defects or quality issues are viewed as learning opportunities rather than failures that require formal escalation. Revisiting development and testing activities allows the team to quickly identify root causes, such as unclear acceptance criteria, gaps in automated tests, or misunderstandings in requirements. By addressing the issue at its source, teams can prevent similar defects from recurring in future iterations.

Option A, escalating the issue to the project manager, is generally unnecessary for minor quality failures in Agile. Agile teams are empowered to self-manage and resolve issues at the team level whenever possible. Option B, performing an independent review, may be appropriate for major or systemic quality problems but is excessive as an initial response to a minor issue. Option D, discussing the issue with the chief product owner, is also not the first step unless the issue affects product value or requires a change in priorities.

Agile Foundation documents stress the importance of continuous improvement, built-in quality practices, and early defect resolution. Techniques such as test-driven development, continuous integration, peer reviews, and frequent retrospectives support this approach. By immediately revisiting development and test activities, Agile teams maintain flow, reduce rework, and ensure that quality issues are resolved quickly and effectively, reinforcing Agile principles of transparency, inspection, and adaptation.

Agile Foundation guidance clearly states that the project retrospective workshop is the workshop designed to extract actionable insights for future iterations, making option C the correct answer. Retrospectives are a core Agile practice focused on learning, reflection, and continuous improvement. Their primary purpose is to help teams and stakeholders understand what has happened, why it happened, and how future ways of working can be improved.

During a project retrospective workshop, participants reflect on recent iterations or delivery stages, examining aspects such as collaboration, communication, processes, tools, quality, and decision-making. The emphasis is not on assigning blame, but on identifying patterns, root causes, and opportunities for improvement. From this reflection, the team agrees on concrete, actionable actions that can be implemented in upcoming iterations to enhance effectiveness and outcomes.

Option A, the progress review workshop, focuses on assessing current status, deliverables, and performance against plans or objectives. While it may highlight issues, it does not primarily aim to generate improvement actions. Option B, the project initiation workshop, occurs at the start of the project and establishes vision, scope, and approach, rather than extracting learning from experience. Option D, the team planning workshop, concentrates on selecting and organizing upcoming work, not on analyzing past performance or improving ways of working.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that retrospectives are essential for embedding a culture of learning and adaptability. By regularly extracting actionable insights, teams can continuously refine their processes, strengthen collaboration, and improve quality and delivery speed. Retrospectives also support psychological safety by creating a structured space for honest discussion and shared ownership of improvement. This focus on turning reflection into action ensures that learning is applied, not just observed, making the project retrospective workshop the primary mechanism for driving improvement across future iterations.

Culture refers to the collective attitudes, values, beliefs, and goals shared by a group or organization. It shapes how people behave, make decisions, and interact. In PRINCE2 Agile, understanding and adapting organizational culture is critical for successful agile adoption and delivery.

Leadership (B) influences culture but is distinct, co-creation (C) is a collaborative approach, and management (D) relates to planning and control activities.

A positive, agile-friendly culture fosters openness, trust, and continuous improvement.

Agile Foundation guidance recognizes that a smooth and effective handover to operations depends on providing clear, relevant, and usable information about what has been built and how it works. Documentation on functionality is therefore the key factor that ensures the operations team has a clear understanding of deliverables during the handover process, making option C the correct answer.

Although Agile values working solutions over comprehensive documentation, it does not eliminate documentation altogether. Instead, Agile promotes “just enough” documentation that is fit for purpose. During handover, operations teams need to understand system behavior, features, configurations, limitations, and operational requirements. Functional documentation provides this clarity by explaining what the product does, how it should be used, and how it behaves under normal and exceptional conditions. This enables operations teams to support, maintain, and troubleshoot the product effectively.

Option A, retrospective documentation, focuses on lessons learned and process improvements for the delivery team rather than explaining the product itself. While useful for continuous improvement, it does not directly support operational understanding of deliverables. Option B, Kanban or team boards, provide visibility into work in progress and workflow during development, but they are not designed to communicate finalized product functionality during handover. Option D, a risk management approach, helps identify and mitigate risks but does not clearly describe the delivered product or its capabilities.

Agile Foundation materials emphasize collaboration between delivery and operations, often aligned with DevOps principles, to reduce handover friction. Clear documentation on functionality supports this collaboration by ensuring shared understanding and continuity after delivery. When operations teams know exactly what has been delivered and how it functions, they can confidently take ownership, maintain service quality, and respond effectively to issues. This approach aligns with Agile’s focus on sustainable delivery, transparency, and long-term value creation.

The Delivering level is responsible for the day-to-day management and decision-making within the constraints set by the project manager. Delivering teams carry out the actual work to create the project products and manage their activities under the project’s governance framework. The Project Manager manages the overall project, while directing sets the strategic direction and commissioning authorizes initiation.

This separation ensures clear responsibilities and empowers the delivery teams to self-manage within defined boundaries.

A key criterion for the Definition of Ready is that acceptance criteria are measurable. This ensures that work items are clearly understood, well-defined, and have objective criteria to confirm when they are complete. Measurable acceptance criteria reduce ambiguity and support efficient development and quality assurance.

Other options describe completion or handover stages, which are more relevant to the Definition of Done, not Ready.

A well-recognized challenge when merging traditional project management with Agile approaches is the use of different terminology, making option B the correct answer. Agile Foundation materials highlight that traditional project management and Agile have evolved from different perspectives, each with its own language, concepts, and assumptions. When these approaches are combined within the same organization or project, misunderstandings often arise due to terminology differences rather than fundamental conflicts in intent.

Traditional project management commonly uses terms such as scope, milestones, deliverables, baselines, and change control, while Agile uses concepts like backlog, iterations, increments, velocity, and value delivery. Even when the underlying goals are aligned, different terminology can create confusion among stakeholders, project managers, Agile teams, and senior leadership. This confusion may lead to misaligned expectations, incorrect reporting, or resistance to Agile practices, as people may interpret the same words differently or assume conflicting meanings.

Option A, lack of clear processes, is generally not a common issue because both project management and Agile provide structured approaches, albeit in different forms. Option C, lack of guidance at the project level, is also not accurate, as Agile Foundation guidance increasingly addresses how Agile can operate at team, project, and organizational levels. Option D, the use of a flexible framework, is actually a benefit of Agile rather than a challenge.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that overcoming terminology differences requires education, shared understanding, and alignment rather than choosing one approach over the other. By establishing a common language, clarifying roles and expectations, and focusing on value delivery rather than labels, organizations can successfully integrate Agile ways of working with project management governance. Addressing terminology differences early helps reduce friction, improves collaboration, and enables a more effective hybrid or Agile-informed project environment.

Agility is defined as the ability to embrace and respond to change quickly and effectively. It is a core principle of agile methods, enabling organizations and teams to adapt to evolving business needs, customer feedback, and external factors while delivering value continuously.

This definition contrasts with traditional change control, which often aims to prevent changes (C). Agility promotes flexibility, learning, and continuous improvement, but the belief that anyone is capable of learning (D), while important, is a cultural aspect rather than a direct definition of agility. The sequence of actions (A) relates more to processes than agility itself.

Understanding agility as the capacity to adapt ensures project approaches remain relevant in dynamic environments.

Reference https://publications.axelos.com/prince2agile2016/content.aspx?page=pra_126 &showNav=true&expandNav=true