Incremental Development and Delivery

Correct Answer: Impact negotiation should be done with the client where the cost, schedule and functionality impacts of continued incrementing or bundling the functionality into a larger increment are discussed.

In agile incremental development, every increment is expected to deliver a useful functionality. However when a feature cannot be broken into smaller increments that provides a useful functionality, the situation requires negotiation with the client instead of going ahead with non-functional increments, ignoring the feature, or putting the entire project on hold. The negotiation process with the client involves discussing the cost, schedule, and functionality impacts of continuing the incremental development or bundling the functionality into a larger increment. In other words, the decision is made collaboratively with the client factoring in the potential impacts on project delivery. The other answers are incorrect because neither skipping the feature entirely, proceeding with broken down increments irrespective of their functionality, nor putting the entire project on hold are agile principles nor would they lead to a successful project delivery. They do not involve collaborating with the client, adjusting to changes, or providing continuous value which are core principles in agile methodologies.

Correct Answer: Converse with the client to make necessary adjustments to the product vision and keep the communication transparent to manage expectations.

The best approach when noticing discrepancies in the final product despite successful incremental deliveries according to the PMI Agile Certified Practitioner course, is to converse with the client to make necessary adjustments to the product vision and keep the communication transparent to manage expectations. This is because Agile methodologies prioritize regular and clear communication between the development team and the client. Agile is about being adaptable to change and this includes changing the initial product vision if necessary, to meet client's requirements or if issues are found during incremental deliveries. Remaining rigid on the initial plan, as second answer suggests, would contradict the principles of Agile methods. Furthermore, abruptly stopping all work to restructure the project (third answer) can be a waste of resources and time. Finally, ignoring the discrepancies and hoping that the client does not notice them (fourth answer) is not good professional practice, and does not align with Agile principles of transparency and adaptability.

Correct Answer: Assess its overall impact on the product and existing increments, educate the client about it and incorporate it in a future increment after mutual consensus.

The most effective way to incorporate the new technology in an incremental development project would be to initially assess its overall impact on the product and the existing increments. This ensures that the new technology will indeed improve the product's functionality and does not disrupt or make redundant the work that has already been done on the project. Educating the client about the potential benefits and implications of the new technology is a crucial step that maintains transparency and helps in making informed decisions. Lastly, incorporating this technology into a future increment after mutual consensus with the client enables smoother transition and reduces the risk of potential issues or disagreements that may arise later onThe other three options have major flaws. Immediately incorporating the new technology without seeking the client's consent might lead to serious client dissatisfaction and potential legal issues for breach of the original project scope and not maintaining transparency. Ignoring the new technology altogether is not an effective strategy either, as it misses an important opportunity for product improvement and could cause the product to be technically outdated even before its completion. The option of redoing all previous increments using the new technology is likely to be highly inefficient, time-consuming, and expensive, and may not even be feasible in many situations, especially when the product already has satisfactory functionality.