What would imply a change to the ART Budget?

Question

Options

• AExtending the duration of a PI.
• BChanging total ART resources
• CSwitching to a different PI cadence.
• DReducing the scope of a Program Epic.
• EPrioritizing Features based on Cost of Delay.

• B
  4% (1)
• C
  4% (1)
• D
  79% (19)
• E
  13% (3)

Explanation

Reducing the scope of a Program Epic directly changes its cost estimate, since the Lean Business Case underlying the epic was originally sized based on that scope - shrinking it implies the budget allocated for the epic must be revised (freed up or reallocated). The other options are about how or when work happens, not what was committed to: extending a PI duration (A) just spreads the same work over more time without changing total capacity consumed; switching PI cadence (C) is a structural rhythm change with no impact on the overall funding allocation; and prioritizing by Cost of Delay (E) is a sequencing decision - it reorders work within an existing budget, not a trigger to change the budget itself. Option B is the tricky one: changing total ART resources would be a budget change, but it describes the mechanism directly rather than an event that implies one, making it a category error in this context.

Memory tip: Think of Program Epics as budget line items - when the scope of a line item shrinks, the budget must be re-examined. The other distractors all describe operational or scheduling decisions that keep total ART capacity untouched.

No community discussion yet for this question.