Your product has been using two-week sprints successfully for eight months. Recently, market dynamics have accelerated, with competitors releasing features weekly. Your executive sponsor wants the team to switch to one-week sprints to 'move faster and be more agile.' The team is concerned this will increase ceremony overhead and reduce their actual development time. When you analyze the data, you find the team averages 1.5 days of ceremonies per sprint and typically doesn't have testable increments until day 9-10 of the current sprint. What recommendation best addresses the sponsor's concern while maintaining team effectiveness?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct answer is D. This scenario tests understanding that sprint length alone doesn't determine agility or speed-to-market. The real constraint is the team's ability to produce deployable increments—currently taking 9-10 days indicates process inefficiencies, not sprint length issues (ECO Process Task 3.10 on continuous improvement). Option D addresses the root cause: improving technical practices (likely CI/CD, testing, integration) enables faster value delivery regardless of sprint length. Option B sounds sophisticated but doesn't solve the underlying capability gap. Option C creates artificial checkpoints without addressing why increments take so long. Option A is the most common wrong answer—it satisfies the sponsor superficially but will reduce team effectiveness since ceremonies would consume 30% of a one-week sprint, and the team still can't deliver value until day 9.

More Process Questions