PMI-ACP · Question #621
PMI-ACP Question #621: Real Exam Question with Answer & Explanation
The correct answer is D: A team review of the scope of work should have been conducted. The root cause is a failure of communication — the team was never made aware of the performance requirement. A team review of the scope of work at the start of the project or iteration would have brought all requirements, including non-functional ones like response time, to the
Question
During the review session, the product owner discovers that the user interface has a response time of 10 seconds. The non-functional requirements state that it should respond in less than two seconds. The team complains that this requirement was not communicated to them. What should have been done to avoid this?
Options
- AA comprehensive user story with all non-functional requirements should have been created
- BNon-functional requirements should have been added to the acceptance criteria
- CNon-functional requirements should have been added to the definition of done
- DA team review of the scope of work should have been conducted
Explanation
The root cause is a failure of communication — the team was never made aware of the performance requirement. A team review of the scope of work at the start of the project or iteration would have brought all requirements, including non-functional ones like response time, to the team's attention before development began. Option B (acceptance criteria) and C (definition of done) are valid mechanisms to document NFRs, but they address documentation after the fact, not the initial communication gap. Option A (comprehensive user story) is incomplete because user stories alone don't guarantee the team understands and internalizes requirements. A structured scope review ensures shared understanding across the entire team.
Topics
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.