Select 2) You are prioritizing Epics and the group cannot reach a consensus on WSJF parameters. What would be the best course of action to reduce inconsistencies?

Question

Options

• ACollect additional input from other stakeholders.
• BTake time to provide more detailed specifications for each Epic.
• CUse strategic themes to help the group understand how an Epic contributes to the realization of
• DChange the scale for WSJF parameters.
• ESplit Epics into Capabilities, prioritize them, and combine those priorities back to the Epic level.

• A
  8% (5)
• B
  72% (44)
• D
  5% (3)
• E
  15% (9)

Explanation

When a group struggles to agree on WSJF parameters, the root cause is almost always a shared understanding gap - not a process or scale problem. Option B (detailed specifications) resolves disagreements by ensuring everyone is evaluating the same Epic with the same level of clarity; vague Epics naturally produce inconsistent scoring. Option C (strategic themes) gives participants a common strategic lens to assess business value, time criticality, and risk reduction more consistently, since the Epic's contribution to organizational goals becomes explicit.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A - Adding more stakeholders to a group that already can't reach consensus typically amplifies inconsistency, not reduces it.
• D - Changing the scale (e.g., Fibonacci vs. linear) doesn't resolve why people disagree; it just changes the numbers.
• E - Splitting Epics into Capabilities is a decomposition technique for refinement, not a tool for resolving WSJF scoring disagreements at the Epic level.

Memory tip: WSJF disagreements = a clarity problem. Remember B + C = "Better Context" - Better specs (B) clarify what the Epic is; strategic themes (C) clarify why it matters. Both attack the same root cause from different angles.

No community discussion yet for this question.