Pass the Scrum Professional Scrum Master PSM-I Questions and answers with Dumpstech

The next Sprint begins immediately after the conclusion of the previous Sprint, as stated in the Scrum Guide: “Sprints have consistent durations throughout a development effort. A new Sprint starts immediately after the conclusion of the previous Sprint.”

According to the Scrum Guide, the Developers are accountable for tracking the remaining work toward the Sprint Goal, as they are responsible for creating a valuable Increment that meets the Definition of Done and the Sprint Goal. The other options are not valid, as they imply that someone else outside the Development Team (such as the Scrum Master, the Product Owner, or the Project Manager) is accountable for tracking the remaining work, which is not consistent with Scrum values and principles.

A cross-functional Development Team is one that includes cross-skilled individuals who are able to contribute to do what is necessary to deliver an increment of software, as stated in the Scrum Guide 1 : “Cross-functional teams have all competencies needed to accomplish the work without depending on others not part of the team.”

According to the Scrum Guide, the Development Team should do two things during the first Sprint: develop at least one piece of functionality and create an increment of potentially releasable software. These are the goals of every Sprint, regardless of its order. The other options are not things that the Development Team should do during the first Sprint, as they are either out of scope (such as making a plan for the rest of the project or defining major product features and release plan architecture) or unnecessary (such as analyzing, describing, and documenting requirements for subsequent Sprints).

According to the Scrum Guide 1 , a Sprint can be cancelled before the Sprint time-box is over. Only the Product Owner has the authority to cancel the Sprint, although he or she may do so under influence from the stakeholders, the Developers, or the Scrum Master. A Sprint would be cancelled if the Sprint Goal becomes obsolete. This might occur if the company changes direction or if market or technology conditions change. In general, a Sprint should be cancelled if it no longer makes sense given the circumstances. But, due to the short duration of Sprints, cancellation rarely makes sense.

The Scrum Master is accountable for establishing Scrum as defined in the Scrum Guide and for helping everyone understand Scrum theory and practice. Option A is correct because Scrum events are timeboxed, and the Scrum Master helps the Scrum Team understand and properly use those timeboxes so events remain focused, productive, and effective. Teaching the team how timeboxing supports empiricism, focus, and predictability is part of the Scrum Master’s service to the team.

Option D is also correct because the Scrum Master serves the organization by helping those outside the Scrum Team understand how to interact effectively with the team. This includes removing barriers between stakeholders and Scrum Teams and coaching the organization in Scrum adoption.

Option B is incorrect because Scrum does not require the Scrum Master to maintain burndown charts. Option C is incorrect because Developers are self-managing and the Scrum Master does not assign tasks. Option E is incorrect because the Sprint Review is a collaborative inspection of the Increment, and completion is determined by whether work meets the Definition of Done, not by the Scrum Master declaring it.

According to the Scrum Guide, two things that the Scrum Team should do during the first Sprint are building at least one piece of valuable functionality and creating at least one valuable, useful Increment. These are the goals of every Sprint, regardless of its order. The other options are not things that the Scrum Team should do during the first Sprint, as they are either out of scope (such as defining major product features and a release plan architecture or making a plan for the rest of the project) or unnecessary (such as analyzing, describing, and documenting requirements for subsequent Sprints).

Two techniques that would be most helpful in this situation are to discuss the impediments with the Development Team, and to prioritize the list and work on them in order, as stated in [3]: “The Scrum Master should facilitate a discussion with the Development Team to identify and prioritize the impediments that are blocking their progress. The Scrum Master should then work with the Development Team and other stakeholders to remove or mitigate these impediments as soon as possible.”

The correct answer is C. Scrum defines accountabilities for product value, team effectiveness, and creating Done Increments, but it does not give the Scrum Master, Product Owner, or Scrum Team formal managerial authority to hire or fire people. Personnel decisions such as removing someone from a team are typically the responsibility of the organization and its management structure. In this case, the hiring manager or appropriate people manager would be responsible for removing the Developer if that becomes necessary.

Option A is incorrect because although the Scrum Master helps remove impediments, that does not mean they have authority over employment or staffing decisions. Option B is incorrect because the Product Owner is accountable for maximizing product value, not for personnel management. Option D is incorrect because the Scrum Team is self-managing with respect to its work, but it does not generally have organizational authority to remove employees from the team.

The Scrum Master should still help the team address the conflict by coaching, facilitating conversations, and improving collaboration. But if actual removal is required, that action belongs to the organization’s management system, not to a Scrum accountability.

A Sprint may be cancelled only if the Sprint Goal becomes obsolete. This makes Option A the correct answer. The Scrum Guide is very clear that only the Product Owner has the authority to cancel a Sprint, although that decision may be influenced by stakeholders, the Developers, or the Scrum Master. The reason for cancellation is not general disruption, poor forecasting, or the appearance of new work. It is specifically tied to the Sprint Goal no longer having value or relevance.

Option B is incorrect because a new business opportunity does not automatically justify cancelling a Sprint. Scrum is designed to handle change without disrupting the Sprint unless the Sprint Goal itself is no longer valid. Option C is incorrect because feasibility concerns should be addressed through collaboration and adaptation, but they do not by themselves define the cancellation rule. Option D is incorrect because not finishing all selected work is not a reason to cancel a Sprint. Scrum accepts uncertainty, and the team inspects and adapts. The Sprint Goal remains the key commitment, and as long as it is still relevant, the Sprint should continue.