更新された2026年07月公式問題PRINCE2-Agile-Foundation認定にはPRINCE2-Agile-Foundation問題集PDF [Q50-Q70]

Agile Foundation guidance describes co-creation as a collaborative approach where value is created together by people who share common attitudes, values, and goals. This makes option C the correct answer. Co-creation goes beyond simply assigning work or motivating individuals to meet predefined objectives. Instead, it emphasizes collective ownership, shared understanding, and active participation by all relevant stakeholders in shaping outcomes.
In Agile environments, co-creation is rooted in the belief that the best solutions emerge when diverse perspectives work together in an open and trusting environment. Teams, customers, users, and stakeholders collaborate continuously to explore needs, generate ideas, and refine solutions. This shared mindset ensures that everyone involved is aligned on purpose and value, rather than working in isolation or following instructions without context.
Option A focuses on motivation to meet objectives, which reflects performance management rather than co-creation. While motivation is important, it does not necessarily involve shared ownership or joint value creation. Option B, agreeing ways of working, relates to establishing working agreements or team norms, which support collaboration but do not define co-creation itself. Option D, instructing the execution of tasks, represents a command-and-control approach that is contrary to Agile principles and does not encourage shared responsibility or creativity.
Agile Foundation documents emphasize that co-creation strengthens engagement, trust, and innovation. When people share attitudes, values, and goals, they are more likely to challenge assumptions constructively, learn from each other, and adapt solutions based on feedback. This approach supports Agile principles such as collaboration, customer focus, and continuous improvement. Co-creation ensures that value is not simply delivered to stakeholders but created with them, leading to better outcomes, higher satisfaction, and more sustainable Agile ways of working.

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.

Agile Foundation guidance explains that the release planning workshop is the forum where personas and evolving user needs are revisited and refined, making option C the correct answer. Release planning focuses on aligning upcoming work with user value, business priorities, and learning gained from previous deliveries. As Agile delivery is iterative and incremental, understanding users is not a one-off activity but an ongoing process that evolves as feedback is gathered.
During a release planning workshop, teams review insights from recent increments, stakeholder feedback, and real user behavior. Personas-representations of key user types-are revisited to confirm whether assumptions remain valid or need adjustment. As products evolve, new needs may emerge, priorities may shift, and earlier hypotheses about users may prove incomplete. Release planning provides the structured opportunity to incorporate this learning and refine the understanding of who the users are and what they need most next.
Option A, the team retrospective workshop, focuses on improving the team’s ways of working rather than reviewing user needs or personas. Option B, the project kickoff workshop, is typically held at the start of the initiative to establish initial vision, scope, and understanding, but it does not revisit evolving needs. Option D, the agile enablement workshop, concentrates on assessing and planning for risks associated with Agile adoption, not on refining user personas.
Agile Foundation documents emphasize that Agile success depends on continuous alignment with customer and user value. Release planning workshops support this by ensuring that upcoming work reflects the latest understanding of user needs rather than outdated assumptions. By regularly revisiting personas during release planning, teams strengthen customer focus, reduce waste, and improve the likelihood that delivered increments will meet real user expectations. This approach reinforces Agile principles of feedback, learning, and value-driven delivery.

When transitioning from project delivery into business as usual (BAU), establishing regular feedback loops is crucial to ensure continual improvement. Feedback loops enable ongoing monitoring, learning, and adaptation of both products and processes post-transition. They provide mechanisms for capturing user experiences, operational issues, and evolving requirements that inform future iterations and enhancements.
Feedback loops can take many forms, such as user surveys, retrospectives, operational reviews, or service desk reports. Their regularity and structure ensure that BAU teams remain aligned with customer needs and organizational goals while adapting to changes effectively. This approach fosters a culture of continuous learning and agility even after the formal project has closed.
Providing access to Kanban or team boards (A) supports transparency and workflow management but is more tactical and internal to teams rather than a strategic approach to continuous improvement across BAU.
Agreeing on SLAs (C) and KPIs (D) define performance and service targets but do not inherently drive feedback or improvement cycles without mechanisms for learning and response.
PRINCE2 Agile highlights the importance of feedback loops as part of the ‘progress’ and ‘quality’ practices extended into BAU to sustain value delivery.
Reference: PRINCE2 Agile Foundation Version 2, Section 9.3 “Transition to BAU,” and PRINCE2 Agile Study Guide, Chapter 9.

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.
Reference: PRINCE2 Agile Foundation Version 2, Section 7.2 “Quality Practice,” and PRINCE2 Agile Study Guide, Chapter 6, “Quality.”

Stakeholders are best described as those who can affect or be affected by the project. This definition is aligned with PRINCE2’s view and recognized globally in project management standards. Stakeholders include anyone with an interest or influence in the project outcomes, including project team members, users, suppliers, and external entities. Understanding and managing stakeholder engagement is crucial for project success, as stakeholders’ expectations and needs impact decisions and project delivery.
Options A, B, and D describe subsets or partial perspectives of stakeholders but do not capture the full inclusive scope.

The concept of “being Agile” rather than merely “doing Agile” is a central theme in Agile Foundation guidance. “Being Agile” refers to adopting the Agile mindset, values, and principles as a way of thinking and behaving, rather than simply applying a set of tools, ceremonies, or techniques. This mindset emphasizes adaptability, collaboration, continuous learning, and responsiveness to change, which is best represented by option B.
Agile foundations clearly distinguish mindset from mechanics. While timelines, documentation, and techniques have their place, they are secondary to people, interactions, and the ability to respond effectively to changing circumstances. Adaptability means welcoming change, even late in development, when it improves value for customers and stakeholders. Collaboration emphasizes close, ongoing cooperation between cross-functional team members, business representatives, and customers, ensuring shared understanding and faster decision-making.
Option A focuses on strict timelines and task completion, which aligns more closely with traditional predictive or plan-driven approaches. Agile recognizes that rigid timelines can reduce flexibility and discourage learning. Option C emphasizes document-driven processes, which contradict the Agile value of prioritizing working solutions over comprehensive documentation. Documentation is useful, but it should support value delivery, not dominate it. Option D highlights Agile techniques for efficiency, which reflects “doing Agile” rather than “being Agile.” Techniques such as stand-ups, boards, or retrospectives only create value when guided by an Agile mindset.
In Agile foundations, “being Agile” enables teams to continuously inspect and adapt their ways of working, improve relationships, and deliver meaningful outcomes. By focusing on adaptability and collaboration, organizations create environments where teams can respond effectively to uncertainty, learn from feedback, and consistently deliver value, which is the true intent of Agile.

Reference: https://publications.axelos.com/PRINCE2Agile2016/content.aspx?
page=pra_47&showNav=true&expandNav=true

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.

‘Being agile’ refers to embracing the mindset and principles of agility, not just following agile practices mechanically. Option D illustrates ‘being agile’ because the customer has embraced the iterative approach and focuses on requirements that add real value, which reflects true agile values such as customer collaboration, responding to change, and delivering value early and continuously.
Options A, B, and C describe activities related to agile practices but don’t necessarily reflect the deeper agile mindset or cultural shift fundamental to ‘being agile’.

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.

The starting-up workshop is the initial workshop where the foundation for the project is established, including the creation and clarification of project role descriptions. Defining roles early ensures clarity of responsibilities, helps establish governance, and sets expectations for the project team.
Kickoff (B) focuses on launching the project, initiation (C) develops detailed plans, and the project canvas (D) is a tool for capturing high-level information but does not define roles explicitly.