You are working with an ART that is preparing for their first PI Planning event. All Features are formulated and ready for WSJF prioritization. However, when you look over the list of Features, it…

Question

Options

• ASplit the backlog items into smaller, more manageable pieces of work and rearrange them into real
• BFormulate business benefits for each backlog item. If not meaningful business benefits can be
• CBuild explicit dependencies between backlog items. If B depends on A for completion, make sure
• DIdentify the associated Epics when formulating Features.

• A
  75% (21)
• B
  14% (4)
• C
  7% (2)
• D
  4% (1)

Explanation

Option A is correct because WSJF requires comparably-sized, meaningful Features - work deliverable within a single PI. When backlog items are oversized "big tasks" (essentially Epics in disguise), they can't be reliably estimated for Job Size or Cost of Delay, making WSJF meaningless. Splitting them into properly-scoped Features restores the granularity WSJF needs to produce useful prioritization.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• B - Adding business benefits addresses Cost of Delay inputs, but doesn't fix the core problem that the items are the wrong size/type to be prioritized as Features.
• C - Mapping dependencies is a useful PI Planning activity, but dependency links between oversized items don't transform them into proper Features eligible for WSJF.
• D - Features are decomposed from Epics, not mapped back to them. Identifying parent Epics doesn't make the oversized items smaller or more suitable for WSJF scoring.

Memory tip: Remember the SAFe hierarchy - Epics → Features → Stories. If your "Features" feel like Epics, you're one level too high. WSJF lives at the Feature level, so split down until items fit within a PI.

No community discussion yet for this question.