SAFe-SGP SAFe 5 Government Practitioner Exam (5.0) Questions and Answers

According to the Government Article on the Scaled Agile Framework website, tagging backlog items with funding metadata for future reporting and calculating a fixed cost labor cost per ART based on actual salaries are two recommendations for tracking expenditures using the Program Backlog. The article states that “To track expenditures, the Program Backlog can be tagged with funding metadata for future reporting. Additionally, a fixed cost labor cost per ART can be calculated based on actual salaries. This simplifies the tracking of labor costs and allows for more accurate forecasting.” Therefore, the correct answers are A, tagging backlog items with funding metadata for future reporting, and E, calculating a fixed cost labor cost per ART based on actual salaries. The other options are not accurate, as they are not the recommendations for tracking expenditures using the Program Backlog. Organizing ARTs by funding classification (B) is not a recommended practice, as it may create silos and reduce collaboration across ARTs. Including a fiduciary expert in backlog refinement © is not a necessary step, as the backlog items should be prioritized based on value and not on cost. Using charge codes assigned by each program (D) is not a simple or effective way to track expenditures, as it may introduce overhead and complexity.

According to the Essential SAFe article on the Scaled Agile Framework website, the Product Owner (PO) is the role in SAFe that has content authority over the Agile Team’s backlog. The article states that “The Product Owner (PO) is the content authority for the team backlog. The PO is responsible for defining stories and prioritizing the backlog.” Therefore, the correct answer is B, Product Owner. The other options are not accurate, as they are not the roles that have content authority over the Agile Team’s backlog. The Release Train Engineer (A) is the servant leader and chief Scrum Master for the Agile Release Train (ART). The Product Management © is the content authority for the program backlog. The Agile Team (D) is the cross-functional group of developers, testers, and other specialists that deliver value in an iteration.

According to the Decentralize Decision-Making article on the Scaled Agile Framework website, the type of decision that should be decentralized is the one that has a high cost of delay. The article states that “All other decisions should be decentralized. Characteristics of these types of decisions include: Frequent – The problems addressed by decentralized decisions are recurrent and common (e.g., Team and Program Backlog prioritization, real-time Agile Release Train [ART] scoping, response to defects and emerging issues). Time-critical – The cost of delay for these decisions is high, and waiting for approval or consensus would cause significant waste or missed opportunities. Reversible – The consequences of these decisions are not long-lasting or irreversible and can be easily changed or corrected if needed.” Therefore, the correct answer is A, high cost of delay. The other options are not accurate, as they are either irrelevant or better suited for centralized decisions.

The result of traditional ‘at the end’ quality and compliance is that it leads to missed opportunities for iterative compliance assessment1. This means that the quality and compliance activities are deferred until the end of the development cycle, when the solution is already built and ready for testing. This approach increases the risk of finding defects and non-compliances late in the process, which can cause delays, rework, and waste2. It also prevents the teams from getting early feedback and validation from the compliance authorities, which can help them adjust and improve their work incrementally3. By applying the SAFe principle of building incrementally with fast, integrated learning cycles, the teams can integrate quality and compliance into their regular flow of work and deliver solutions that meet the regulatory and industry standards more efficiently and effectively4.

1: Government - Building in Quality and Compliance - Scaled Agile Framework 2: Quality vs. Compliance: What is the difference and what are the common pitfalls? - Honeywell 3: Achieving Regulatory and Industry Standards Compliance with the Scaled Agile Framework® (SAFe®) 4: Principle #6 – Visualize and limit WIP, reduce batch sizes, and manage queue lengths - Scaled Agile Framework

Governance is a framework for decision-making and oversight to ensure that programs achieve the desired mission outcomes1. It is not merely a set of constraints or compliance requirements, but a way to align the program vision, strategy, and execution with the agency goals and values2. Governance helps to ensure that the solutions delivered by the program are fit for purpose, meet the user needs, and provide value to the public3.

1: Government - Adapting Governance Practices to Support Agility and Lean Flow of Value - Scaled Agile Framework 2: Government - Scaled Agile Framework 3: Agile Government and Agile Governance: We Need both

According to the Applying Lean Estimating and Forecasting in Cadence article on the Scaled Agile Framework website, ART velocities are used to conduct ‘what if’ analysis for estimating and forecasting in SAFe. The article states that “The ART velocity is used to conduct ‘what if’ analysis, which helps determine the feasibility of the plan and the number of features that can be delivered in a PI. The ART velocity is also used to forecast the delivery of features and capabilities beyond the current PI.” Therefore, the correct answer is C, ART velocities are used to conduct ‘what if’ analysis. The other options are not accurate, as they are not the statements that are true for estimating and forecasting in SAFe. Feature estimation is not independent of team-level input (A), as teams are involved in estimating the size and complexity of features using story points or normalized story points. Epics are not estimated by the Epic Owner (B), as they are estimated collaboratively by the Epic Owner, Enterprise Architect, and Lean Portfolio Management. Work breakdown structure to the task level does not help increase estimation accuracy (D), as it introduces unnecessary overhead and delays feedback.

Business epics are large initiatives in SAFe that drive business value and typically cross the organizational boundaries (release trains), time boundaries (Program Increments), or both1. They are solution descriptions for the business that capture the more substantial investments that occur within a portfolio2. Business epics directly deliver business value, while enabler epics are used to advance the Architectural Runway to support upcoming business or technical needs2.

1: Implementation Strategies for Business Epics - Scaled Agile Framework 2: Epic - Scaled Agile Framework

Two statements that accurately describe the SAFe Implementation Roadmap are:

It reflects success patterns from previous implementations of SAFe. The SAFe Implementation Roadmap is based on the experiences and learnings of hundreds of enterprises that have successfully adopted SAFe1. It captures the common critical moves and best practices that have proven to be effective in implementing SAFe in a reliable and predictable way2.

It provides recommended sequencing of role-based training. The SAFe Implementation Roadmap includes a step for training Lean-Agile change agents, who are the key enablers and coaches of the transformation3. It also suggests the appropriate role-based training for executives, managers, leaders, and teams, as well as the timing and sequence of the training in relation to the launch of the ARTs. The training helps to build the knowledge and skills needed to apply SAFe principles and practices at various levels of the enterprise.

Taking an economic view is the SAFe principle that ensures the maximum benefit is generated by understanding trade-offs between risks, cost of delay, operational costs, and development costs for each program and value stream1. This principle requires a fundamental understanding of the economics of building systems and making decisions in a proper economic context. This includes the strategy for incremental value delivery and the broader economic framework for each value stream2. Taking an economic view helps to optimize the flow of value, reduce waste, and deliver solutions that meet customer and stakeholder needs3.

1: SAFe Lean-Agile Principles - Scaled Agile Framework 2: Principle #1 – Take an economic view - Scaled Agile Framework 3: Adopting Lean Budgeting Aligned to Development Value Streams

According to the Build Incrementally with Fast, Integrated Learning Cycles article on the Scaled Agile Framework website, convergence of requirements with designs reduces the cone of uncertainty. The article states that “The cone of uncertainty describes the uncertainty and risk in estimates at different phases of development. The cone narrows as the project progresses, reflecting the fact that there is less uncertainty and risk as more is learned about the requirements and design of the system. The goal is to reduce the cone of uncertainty as quickly as possible by converging on the requirements and design through fast feedback and learning cycles.” Therefore, the correct answer is A, convergence of requirements with designs. The other options are not accurate, as they are not the terms that describe reducing the cone of uncertainty. Convergence of alternatives with flexible specifications (B), convergence of architectures with design sets ©, and convergence of flexible specifications with design sets (D) are not concepts that are used in the Scaled Agile Framework.