PRINCE2-Agile-Foundation PRINCE2 Agile Foundation (Version 2) Exam Questions and Answers

Agile Foundation guidance clearly states that the transition from merely “doing Agile” to truly “being Agile” is driven by adopting an Agile mindset, making option C the correct answer. An Agile mindset represents a set of beliefs, attitudes, and ways of thinking that prioritize flexibility, learning, collaboration, and continuous improvement over rigid plans and fixed assumptions. Without this mindset, Agile practices often become mechanical routines that fail to deliver their intended benefits.

“Doing Agile” typically involves implementing visible practices such as daily stand-ups, iterations, backlogs, or boards. While these practices are useful, Agile Foundation documents emphasize that they only create lasting value when supported by the right mindset. “Being Agile” means embracing uncertainty, welcoming change, learning from feedback, and focusing on delivering value rather than following predefined plans. The Agile mindset encourages experimentation, reflection, and adaptation at both team and organizational levels.

Option A, the Agile Onion, is a conceptual model that explains the layers of Agile but does not itself transform behavior. Option B, psychological safety, is an important enabler that allows people to speak up, learn, and collaborate, but it is not the overarching driver of Agile transformation. Option D, Agile sustainability, focuses on maintaining Agile ways of working over time rather than initiating the shift from doing to being Agile.

Agile Foundation documents highlight that an Agile mindset fosters a culture where learning is continuous and failure is treated as an opportunity to improve. Leaders support this mindset by empowering teams, encouraging autonomy, and focusing on outcomes instead of outputs. When an organization adopts an Agile mindset, practices become adaptable tools rather than rigid rules. This cultural shift is what truly transforms an organization, enabling it to respond effectively to change, innovate continuously, and remain focused on delivering value.

Trading/swapping is a technique used within the issues practice to manage and resolve conflicts or competing priorities by negotiating trade-offs. For example, scope items, resources, or deadlines may be traded or swapped between stakeholders to reach agreements that keep the project on track.

This collaborative negotiation supports flexible, pragmatic issue resolution, aligning with agile values of collaboration and customer focus. It enables project teams to balance competing demands while maintaining progress and business justification.

Objectives and key results (B) are goal-setting tools, refactoring (C) is a technical practice for code improvement, and delegation poker (D) is about decision-making authority — none specifically target issue resolution.

Trading/swapping aligns with PRINCE2’s controlled management of issues and agile’s collaborative problem-solving approach.

In Agile Foundation guidance, the risk practice is explicitly responsible for the identification, assessment, and management of uncertainties, making option A the correct answer. Risk is defined as uncertainty that, if it occurs, will have a positive or negative impact on objectives. Agile recognizes that uncertainty is inherent in complex and adaptive work, so effective risk management is essential to successful delivery.

The risk practice focuses on proactively identifying uncertainties early, assessing their likelihood and impact, and determining appropriate responses. Agile Foundation documents emphasize that risk management in Agile is continuous rather than a one-time activity. Risks are regularly reviewed, updated, and addressed throughout the lifecycle as new information emerges. This aligns with Agile principles of transparency, inspection, and adaptation, allowing teams to respond to uncertainty in a timely and informed manner.

Option B, plans, focuses on outlining how objectives will be achieved and how work will be organized over time. While planning may take risks into account, it does not primarily identify or assess uncertainties. Option C, quality, ensures that outputs meet agreed standards and acceptance criteria but does not deal directly with uncertainty. Option D, business case, justifies why a project should proceed by outlining costs, benefits, and risks at a high level, but it does not actively manage or assess uncertainties on an ongoing basis.

Agile Foundation guidance highlights that Agile approaches often reduce risk by delivering incrementally, seeking early feedback, and validating assumptions quickly. However, this does not eliminate the need for a structured risk practice. Instead, risk management supports Agile delivery by making uncertainties visible and manageable. By embedding risk identification and assessment into regular team activities, organizations can make better decisions, protect value, and increase confidence among stakeholders while still maintaining flexibility and responsiveness to change.

The Agile Enablement Workshop provides a collaborative environment where teams and stakeholders define critical agile artifacts, including the Definition of Ready. This definition specifies the criteria a user story or product backlog item must meet before work can begin, ensuring clarity and readiness.

The workshop facilitates alignment on quality standards, scope, and expectations, reducing ambiguity and improving flow through development cycles. By involving all key participants, the Definition of Ready is meaningful and practical, tailored to the project's specific context.

While starting up (A), kickoff (B), and initiation workshops (C) focus on project foundation and planning, they do not specifically focus on agile readiness criteria.

This workshop is essential for embedding agile practices within PRINCE2 governance and fostering effective delivery.

Within Agile Foundation guidance and PRINCE2 Agile alignment, the Definition of Done (DoD) plays a critical role in supporting an iterative approach to delivery, making option C the correct answer. PRINCE2 Agile combines the governance strengths of PRINCE2 with the flexibility of Agile delivery, and iteration is central to how value is delivered incrementally. The DoD provides a shared and consistent understanding of what it means for work to be complete at the end of each iteration.

The iterative approach in PRINCE2 Agile relies on delivering small, usable increments frequently. The Definition of Done ensures that every increment meets agreed quality standards before it is considered complete. This supports transparency, predictability, and trust, which are essential for iterative delivery. Without a clear DoD, teams risk producing partially finished work that cannot be reviewed, tested, or released, undermining the benefits of iteration.

Option A is incorrect because Agile and PRINCE2 Agile emphasize continuous feedback as a core mechanism for learning and adaptation. Option B, offering predictive insights, is not a defining element of PRINCE2 Agile’s iterative approach; Agile focuses more on empirical feedback than prediction. Option D is also incorrect because frequent testing is encouraged, not reduced, in iterative Agile delivery.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that the DoD acts as a quality gate that supports incremental progress while maintaining control. It aligns delivery teams and stakeholders on expectations and ensures that each iteration produces a potentially usable output. In PRINCE2 Agile, this alignment allows teams to work autonomously within defined tolerances while still meeting governance and assurance requirements. By clearly defining what “done” means, the DoD strengthens the iterative cycle of build, review, learn, and adapt, which is fundamental to Agile and PRINCE2 Agile working together.

Agile Foundation guidance, aligned with PRINCE2 Agile, explains that the Definition of Ready (DoR) and Definition of Done (DoD) should be agreed as early as possible to establish clear expectations around quality, readiness, and completion. The workshop to agree both DoR and DoD is conducted during the Initiating a Project process, making option A the correct answer.

The Initiating a Project process is where the foundations for successful delivery are set. Its purpose is to ensure that there is a shared understanding of how the project will be delivered, governed, and controlled before significant work begins. Agreeing the DoR and DoD at this stage provides clarity on what “ready to start” and “done” actually mean for the project. This helps align stakeholders, delivery teams, and governance roles on quality expectations and acceptance standards.

Option B, Directing a Project, focuses on senior-level decision-making, authorization, and overall control rather than detailed delivery agreements. Option C, Controlling a Stage, deals with monitoring progress and handling issues during execution, not defining core quality agreements. Option D, Managing Product Delivery, concentrates on coordinating work between the team and project management but assumes that definitions such as DoR and DoD are already established.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that DoR and DoD support transparency, consistency, and trust. The DoR ensures that work entering a delivery cycle is sufficiently understood and prepared, reducing waste and rework. The DoD ensures that completed work meets agreed quality criteria and is potentially releasable. Establishing these definitions during Initiating a Project supports Agile principles of built-in quality and shared understanding, while also satisfying governance needs. By agreeing them early, teams can work autonomously within clear boundaries, improving flow, predictability, and value delivery throughout the project.

Agile Foundation guidance, aligned with PRINCE2 Agile concepts, explains that integrated elements are used to describe different aspects of how a project is structured and delivered. Among these elements, the “people” element specifically defines who is working on the project and who is affected by the project, making option D the correct answer.

The people element focuses on roles, responsibilities, relationships, and stakeholders involved in the project. It identifies not only the delivery team members but also sponsors, users, customers, suppliers, and any individuals or groups impacted by the project’s outcomes. Agile and PRINCE2 Agile both emphasize that successful delivery depends heavily on people, collaboration, and clear accountability. Understanding who is involved and affected ensures effective communication, engagement, and decision-making throughout the project lifecycle.

Option A, the project context, describes the environment in which the project operates, including organizational, regulatory, and external factors, but it does not specifically define who is involved. Option B, the PRINCE2 practices, focuses on areas such as risk, quality, plans, and progress, providing guidance on what needs to be managed rather than who is involved. Option C, the PRINCE2 processes, outlines the flow of activities and decision points during the project, not the people performing or impacted by them.

Agile Foundation documents stress that Agile delivery is people-centric. Self-organizing teams, empowered roles, and active stakeholder involvement are core to Agile success. The people element supports this by ensuring clarity around roles, expectations, and collaboration pathways. By clearly defining who is working on the project and who is affected by it, teams can build trust, manage stakeholder needs effectively, and adapt to change more smoothly. This alignment of people with purpose and value delivery is central to both Agile principles and PRINCE2 Agile integration.

Agile Foundation guidance describes the project canvas as a living, lightweight artifact that supports alignment, transparency, and ongoing benefit realization throughout the project lifecycle. It should not be treated as a one-time planning document. The correct point at which the project canvas should be both updated and used to assess whether intended benefits have been or will be realized is at the end of each delivery stage, making option C the correct answer.

Agile and PRINCE2 Agile approaches emphasize incremental delivery and continuous validation of value. Each delivery stage produces usable outputs or increments that can be reviewed against expected outcomes and benefits. Updating the project canvas at the end of each delivery stage allows the team and stakeholders to reflect on what has actually been delivered, what has changed, and whether assumptions made earlier are still valid. This includes reassessing benefits, risks, stakeholders, and priorities based on real evidence rather than predictions.

Option A, the end of the pre-project stage, is too early, as no meaningful delivery has occurred to assess benefits. Option B, the end of initiation, focuses on planning and setup rather than value realization. Option D, the end of the final delivery stage, is too late because it limits opportunities to adapt if benefits are not being realized as expected.

Agile Foundation documents stress the importance of frequent inspection and adaptation. By reviewing and updating the project canvas at the end of each delivery stage, teams can make informed decisions about continuing, pivoting, or stopping work. This supports effective governance while preserving agility. Regular benefit assessment ensures that the project remains aligned with business objectives and continues to justify investment, reinforcing Agile’s focus on value delivery rather than simply completing planned activities.

The Recommend step in issue management involves analyzing the issue and evaluating possible options to resolve it. At this stage, the project team or responsible individuals identify potential solutions, weigh their pros and cons, and recommend the best course of action to decision-makers.

Capture is the initial identification and recording of the issue, Decide involves making the final decision on the recommended solution, and Implement is the execution of the chosen resolution. Evaluating options thoroughly during the Recommend phase helps ensure informed decision-making and effective issue resolution.

This structured approach aligns with PRINCE2’s focus on proactive issue management, maintaining control and reducing risk impacts.

A well-recognized challenge when merging traditional project management with Agile approaches is the use of different terminology, making option B the correct answer. Agile Foundation materials highlight that traditional project management and Agile have evolved from different perspectives, each with its own language, concepts, and assumptions. When these approaches are combined within the same organization or project, misunderstandings often arise due to terminology differences rather than fundamental conflicts in intent.

Traditional project management commonly uses terms such as scope, milestones, deliverables, baselines, and change control, while Agile uses concepts like backlog, iterations, increments, velocity, and value delivery. Even when the underlying goals are aligned, different terminology can create confusion among stakeholders, project managers, Agile teams, and senior leadership. This confusion may lead to misaligned expectations, incorrect reporting, or resistance to Agile practices, as people may interpret the same words differently or assume conflicting meanings.

Option A, lack of clear processes, is generally not a common issue because both project management and Agile provide structured approaches, albeit in different forms. Option C, lack of guidance at the project level, is also not accurate, as Agile Foundation guidance increasingly addresses how Agile can operate at team, project, and organizational levels. Option D, the use of a flexible framework, is actually a benefit of Agile rather than a challenge.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that overcoming terminology differences requires education, shared understanding, and alignment rather than choosing one approach over the other. By establishing a common language, clarifying roles and expectations, and focusing on value delivery rather than labels, organizations can successfully integrate Agile ways of working with project management governance. Addressing terminology differences early helps reduce friction, improves collaboration, and enables a more effective hybrid or Agile-informed project environment.

Agile Foundation guidance explains that a “fail-fast-learn-fast” environment is best supported by the principle tailor to suit the project, making option D the correct answer. This principle emphasizes adapting methods, controls, and ways of working to match the project’s context, level of uncertainty, and risk. In Agile and PRINCE2 Agile environments, tailoring enables teams to experiment, learn quickly, and adjust without being constrained by unnecessary rules or heavy governance.

A fail-fast-learn-fast culture depends on rapid feedback, short learning cycles, and the freedom to adapt approaches when something does not work as expected. The tailoring principle allows teams to reduce upfront rigidity, simplify documentation, shorten feedback loops, and choose Agile techniques that encourage experimentation. This flexibility makes it easier to test ideas early, identify failures quickly, and apply learning immediately, which is at the heart of Agile thinking.

Option A, manage by stages, supports control and review at defined points, but it does not specifically encourage rapid experimentation or learning. Option B, manage by exception, focuses on governance through tolerances and escalation, which supports empowerment but is not the primary driver of a fail-fast culture. Option C, defining roles, responsibilities, and relationships, ensures clarity and accountability but does not directly promote rapid learning from failure.

Agile Foundation documents stress that tailoring is essential when working in complex and uncertain environments. By tailoring governance and delivery approaches, teams avoid over-engineering solutions and can respond quickly to new information. This principle supports an environment where small failures are acceptable, learning is valued, and continuous improvement is embedded into everyday work. Tailor to suit the project enables Agile teams to balance control with flexibility, making it a key enabler of a fail-fast-learn-fast culture that drives innovation and value delivery.

User inputs are initially gathered as user stories in the product backlog in PRINCE2 Agile. User stories represent small, customer-focused requirements that capture the "who," "what," and "why" of a feature. These stories form the foundation of requirements and quality criteria for the product and ensure that development is driven by user needs and value delivery.

The Definition of Done is developed later as part of the quality management approach to specify when work is complete. Epic user stories are larger features that can be broken down into smaller user stories. The quality register tracks quality-related activities but is not the first step for gathering user inputs.

Agile Foundation guidance explains that the purpose of the agile enablement workshop is to identify, assess, and plan for risks associated with Agile adoption, making option C the correct answer. This workshop is a structured activity designed to help organizations and project teams understand how well Agile ways of working fit their specific context and what challenges may arise when adopting Agile approaches.

The agile enablement workshop focuses on readiness rather than delivery execution. It examines factors such as organizational culture, governance expectations, stakeholder engagement, team capability, leadership support, and external constraints. By discussing these areas openly, participants can identify potential barriers to Agile adoption, assess their impact, and agree on actions to reduce or manage those risks. This proactive approach supports informed decision-making and avoids unrealistic expectations about Agile.

Option A, risks associated with project delivery, relates more to traditional project risk management practices. Option B, team delivery risks, focuses narrowly on team-level execution issues rather than adoption. Option D, enterprise agility risks, applies at a broader organizational transformation level and goes beyond the typical scope of an agile enablement workshop, which is usually project- or initiative-focused.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that Agile adoption is not risk-free and should be approached thoughtfully. The agile enablement workshop helps ensure that Agile is tailored appropriately rather than applied mechanically. It supports alignment between Agile teams and governance structures, clarifies where flexibility is possible, and highlights where controls are required. By identifying and planning for adoption risks early, organizations increase the likelihood of successful Agile implementation while preserving the core values of adaptability, collaboration, and value-driven delivery.

Agile Foundation guidance, aligned with PRINCE2 and PRINCE2 Agile, explains that the closing a project process is primarily used to formally accept the project product, making option C the correct answer. This process ensures that the project has delivered what was agreed, that acceptance criteria have been met, and that the project can be closed in a controlled and orderly manner.

The closing a project process confirms that all products have been completed, approved, and handed over to the appropriate operational or business teams. Formal acceptance of the project product is critical because it provides clarity that delivery is complete and that responsibility for the product has transitioned from the project to ongoing operations or use. Agile Foundation documents emphasize that even in Agile environments, clear closure and acceptance are essential to good governance and benefit realization.

Option A, controlling the link between the project manager and the delivery team, relates to the managing product delivery process, not closing a project. Option B, ensuring the project is viable, is the purpose of the continued business justification principle and is reviewed throughout the project lifecycle, not just at closure. Option D, ensuring focus remains on delivering the stage’s products, aligns with the controlling a stage process, which operates while work is still ongoing.

Agile Foundation materials highlight that closing a project is more than an administrative step. It also includes confirming that benefits management responsibilities are handed over, lessons learned are captured, and stakeholders agree that the project objectives have been met. In Agile and PRINCE2 Agile contexts, this formal closure provides confidence to senior management that investment has delivered its intended outcomes.

By formally accepting the project product, the closing a project process ensures clarity, accountability, and a clean transition from project delivery to operational use, reinforcing disciplined governance while remaining compatible with Agile delivery approaches.

In Agile Foundation guidance, the product backlog is the primary artifact that provides a list of user stories, making option C the correct answer. The product backlog is a prioritized, evolving list of all the work needed to deliver and improve a product. User stories are the most common way of expressing requirements within the product backlog because they focus on user needs, value, and desired outcomes rather than detailed technical specifications.

The product backlog is owned and maintained by the product owner, who is responsible for ensuring that the backlog items are clearly defined, ordered by value, and aligned with business goals. User stories within the product backlog describe features, enhancements, fixes, and technical work from the perspective of the user or customer. This supports Agile’s emphasis on delivering value early and continuously while allowing flexibility as requirements change.

Option A, project backlog, is not a standard Agile Foundation artifact. Agile focuses on products and value streams rather than traditional project-centered task lists. Option B, project canvas, is a high-level visual planning tool used to summarize objectives, stakeholders, risks, and constraints, but it does not contain detailed user stories. Option D, release map, outlines planned releases and timelines at a high level, showing when groups of features or increments may be delivered, but it does not provide the detailed list of user stories themselves.

Agile Foundation documents highlight that the product backlog is dynamic and continuously refined through backlog refinement activities. User stories are added, removed, split, or re-prioritized based on feedback, learning, and changing business needs. This adaptability ensures that teams always work on the most valuable items first. By serving as the single, transparent source of requirements, the product backlog enables collaboration, alignment, and effective value delivery, which is why it is the correct artifact for listing user stories.

The Release Planning Workshop is the forum where planning for the next stage occurs in PRINCE2 Agile. This workshop brings together the project management team and delivery teams to plan the scope, schedule, and resources for the upcoming release or stage. It helps align business priorities with delivery capacity and supports incremental and iterative delivery approaches.

The Team Planning Workshop focuses on more detailed planning at the team level within the release, the Team Retrospective Workshop is dedicated to reflecting on performance and improving processes, and the Progress Review Workshop is for reviewing progress against the plan rather than planning future work.

Agile Foundation guidance clearly identifies Scrum as an iterative and timeboxed approach to product delivery, making option A the correct answer. Scrum is built around fixed-length iterations called sprints, which are typically one to four weeks long. These timeboxes create a regular cadence for planning, development, review, and improvement, enabling teams to deliver usable increments of a product frequently and predictably.

Scrum emphasizes iterative delivery by breaking complex work into smaller, manageable pieces that can be completed within a sprint. Each sprint begins with planning, where the team selects work from the product backlog, and ends with a review and retrospective. This structure supports frequent inspection of both the product and the team’s way of working, allowing for continuous adaptation based on feedback and learning. Agile Foundation documents highlight that timeboxing is a key mechanism in Scrum, helping teams focus, limit work in progress, and reduce risk.

Option B, Kanban, is not timeboxed. Kanban focuses on continuous flow, visualizing work, and limiting work in progress rather than delivering in fixed iterations. Option C, the Agilometer, is an assessment tool used to evaluate suitability and risks of Agile adoption, not a delivery approach. Option D, Lean, is a broader philosophy focused on eliminating waste and optimizing value flow; while it can influence Agile delivery, it is not inherently iterative and timeboxed in the way Scrum is.

Agile Foundation materials stress that Scrum’s iterative and timeboxed nature supports transparency, predictability, and early value delivery. By delivering small increments regularly, teams can gather feedback early, reduce uncertainty, and adapt priorities as needs change. This makes Scrum particularly effective in environments where requirements evolve and learning is essential.

The Agilometer is a diagnostic tool used within PRINCE2 Agile to assess the agility maturity and identify risks associated with adopting or operating in an iterative and agile environment. It helps teams and organizations evaluate their current agile capabilities, cultural readiness, and potential challenges that may impact project delivery.

The Agilometer highlights risk areas such as resistance to change, lack of agile skills, unclear roles, or insufficient governance adaptation. By providing a structured assessment, it enables proactive risk management and targeted improvements to reduce uncertainties inherent in iterative approaches.

Other artifacts like the project backlog (A) track requirements, the risk management approach (C) defines the method of managing risks but does not specifically identify iterative risks, and the Definition of Done (D) clarifies completion criteria rather than risks.

The Agilometer supports continuous improvement and risk mitigation aligned with PRINCE2’s risk and quality practices, ensuring agile projects remain viable and controlled.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in PRINCE2 Agile is recognized as a tool that can assist in reducing uncertainty and ambiguity by providing data-driven insights, predictive analytics, and automation of routine tasks. This support helps teams better understand changing environments and respond faster, thereby addressing complexity associated with change initiatives.

While AI can add complexity if misused, PRINCE2 Agile focuses on its beneficial role in supporting decision-making and reducing unknowns rather than complicating governance or communication.

The Progress Review Workshop is the key forum to assess the current status of the project and address challenges or issues affecting progress. It typically involves reviewing the current stage or release against plan, assessing risks, issues, and dependencies, and agreeing on corrective actions or decisions to keep the project on track.

While retrospectives (B and C) focus on reflecting and improving team practices, and team planning (A) looks ahead to upcoming work, progress reviews are focused on monitoring, control, and decision-making at the project or stage level.

This workshop aligns with PRINCE2’s principle of manage by exception, enabling timely interventions without unnecessary escalation.