PMP · Question #322
An agile project is running activities to define the minimum viable product (MVP). During the session, the project manager identifies some mandatory regulations, but there is no consensus to include t
The correct answer is B. Get commitment from the team to include all of the required regulations.. When mandatory regulations are identified during MVP definition, the project manager must ensure the team commits to including them, as regulatory compliance is non-negotiable for product viability, even if it impacts duration.
Question
An agile project is running activities to define the minimum viable product (MVP). During the session, the project manager identifies some mandatory regulations, but there is no consensus to include these regulations in the MVP because it may extend the duration of the project. What should the project manager do?
Options
- AAsk the project sponsor to add more time to the project.
- BGet commitment from the team to include all of the required regulations.
- CShare with the participants the need to focus only on product functionality.
- DTrain the team on the new regulations as requested by management.
How the community answered
(44 responses)- A2% (1)
- B82% (36)
- C11% (5)
- D5% (2)
Why each option
When mandatory regulations are identified during MVP definition, the project manager must ensure the team commits to including them, as regulatory compliance is non-negotiable for product viability, even if it impacts duration.
Asking for more time is a possible outcome, but it should follow the understanding and commitment to include the mandatory regulations, not precede it or be the primary action.
Mandatory regulations are legal and compliance requirements, which are non-negotiable for a product to be considered viable or shippable. An MVP *must* include all critical functionalities and compliance aspects to be genuinely "viable," so the project manager's role is to ensure the team understands and commits to incorporating these, even if it affects the timeline.
Focusing *only* on product functionality while excluding mandatory regulations would result in a non-compliant and thus non-viable product, undermining the purpose of an MVP.
Training the team on regulations is a supportive action, but it doesn't address the immediate issue of gaining consensus and commitment to *include* them in the MVP definition.
Concept tested: Minimum Viable Product (MVP) definition and compliance
Source: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/devops/agile/product-management/what-is-an-mvp
Topics
Community Discussion
5
Luis F.Mar 14, 2026B is correct because mandatory regulations are non-negotiable, period. I picked B on my exam last week and it makes sense once you realize compliance cannot be traded away for a shorter timeline. The PM needs to get the team on board with including all required regulations in the MVP, even if it extends the schedule. A is a trap because kicking it to the sponsor avoids the real issue, and C is just wrong since functionality alone does not make a product legal.
Zlatan X.Mar 16, 2026Agreed on B, and from a program governance lens the real takeaway is that regulatory compliance is a non-negotiable constraint that shapes component scope across the entire portfolio, so the PM framing it as a schedule trade-off is already thinking too small.
Zlatan X.Mar 25, 2026Saw this on my exam last spring and B is the only call. Mandatory regulations are non-negotiable constraints on benefits realization, so the PM secures team commitment to include them even if the timeline shifts. C is the trap because functionality without compliance is a failed deliverable.
Luis F.Mar 26, 2026B was definitely the right call on my exam too, but I would add that the PM should document the regulatory constraints in the risk register early so the team understands the compliance impact before timeline pressure even hits.
Orla P.Mar 30, 2026B is correct. Regulations are non-negotiable, so the team must commit to including them.