Your agile project team has been using two-week sprints successfully for six months. A new regulatory requirement has been introduced that mandates monthly compliance reports with detailed documentation of all work completed. The compliance officer suggests moving to four-week sprints to align with the reporting cycle, arguing it will reduce administrative overhead. The team is concerned this will reduce their ability to adapt quickly to changing market conditions. How should you address this situation?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct answer is B. Maintaining the two-week sprint cadence while automating compliance reporting preserves team agility and addresses the regulatory need without compromising the team's ability to inspect and adapt frequently (ECO Process Task 5.1 - Plan and manage project compliance). Sprint length should be determined by what enables the team to deliver value most effectively, not by reporting cycles. Option A is the main distractor because it seems to directly solve the compliance problem, but it sacrifices team agility and market responsiveness for administrative convenience. Longer sprints reduce feedback frequency, delay value delivery, and increase risk exposure. The compliance requirement is about reporting, not about how work must be organized. Options C and D create unnecessary complexity or hybrid approaches that don't address the root issue of separating sprint cadence from reporting requirements.

PMP Practice Question: Process — Agile, Medium

More Process Questions