nerdexam
Scaled_Agile

SAFE-SPC · Question #126

(Select 2) When might Feature size not be a good substitute for the duration of WSJF?

The correct answer is B. The Feature involves a team or team members who represent a bottleneck. C. The Feature did not originate from a Value Stream Capability. In WSJF, Feature size (story points) works as a duration proxy only when the implementing ART controls delivery end-to-end. B is correct because a bottleneck resource - whether a team or individual - creates calendar time constraints independent of Feature size; a 3-point…

Lean Portfolio Management

Question

(Select 2) When might Feature size not be a good substitute for the duration of WSJF?

Options

  • AThe Feature did not originate from a Program Epic.
  • BThe Feature involves a team or team members who represent a bottleneck.
  • CThe Feature did not originate from a Value Stream Capability.
  • DThe Feature involves a remote third-party vendor that has a formal scope-approval process.
  • EThe Feature has not yet been broken down into user stories by the Product Owner.

How the community answered

(26 responses)
  • A
    4% (1)
  • B
    81% (21)
  • D
    4% (1)
  • E
    12% (3)

Explanation

In WSJF, Feature size (story points) works as a duration proxy only when the implementing ART controls delivery end-to-end. B is correct because a bottleneck resource - whether a team or individual - creates calendar time constraints independent of Feature size; a 3-point Feature can still take months if it waits on a constrained person or team. C is correct because Features originating from a Value Stream Capability involve Solution Train-level coordination and cross-ART dependencies that inflate actual elapsed time beyond what a Feature's story-point size would suggest; without that Capability lineage, the Feature lacks the Solution-level scoping that would make size a reliable duration stand-in.

The distractors fail for different reasons: A is wrong because whether a Feature came from a Program Epic doesn't affect whether the ART controls its delivery timeline. D is a tempting wrong answer - a vendor approval process does add calendar time - but SAFe treats this as a known external constraint that should be incorporated into the Feature's size estimate or tracked as a dependency, not as a structural reason size fails as a proxy. E is wrong because WSJF sizing occurs at the Feature level and does not require prior story decomposition; relative estimates are still valid without stories.

Memory tip: Think of two "external clock controllers" - a Bottleneck team (B) and a Cross-value-stream dependency (C) both mean someone outside your ART controls how long the Feature actually takes, making your internal size estimate meaningless as a duration proxy.

Topics

#WSJF#job duration estimation#Feature prioritization#cost of delay

Community Discussion

No community discussion yet for this question.

Full SAFE-SPC Practice