A software development organization has a very traditional way of working that no longer meets their market needs. They currently manage all budgets via their development and operations business…

Question

Options

• ASwitch 10 funding teams and value streams
• BSwitch to funding programmes and protects
• CProvide additional funding lo development and operations
• DProvide additional funding via the research and development budget

• A
  72% (18)
• B
  8% (2)
• C
  4% (1)
• D
  16% (4)

Explanation

Funding teams and value streams (A) directly enables continuous, rapid delivery by aligning budgets with the flow of value to customers - money follows outcomes rather than departmental silos. This model lets cross-functional teams own their work end-to-end and respond to market shifts without waiting for annual project approvals.

Why the distractors fail:

• B (programmes and projects) is still a traditional, time-boxed model with fixed scope and start/end dates - it doesn't support continuous delivery or rapid pivoting.
• C (more funding to dev and operations) just adds money to the broken structure; it doesn't change how funding flows or who controls it.
• D (R&D budget) is a separate, innovation-focused pool - it doesn't address the core delivery funding model or enable rapid response across the whole organization.

Memory tip: Think "follow the flow." Value streams represent the flow of value to the customer - so when you fund value streams, the money flows the same direction as the work, eliminating the handoff delays caused by funding separate departmental silos.

No community discussion yet for this question.