Sample question 1 — Part 2 — Practitioner Scenarios
A heavy-equipment manufacturer approved a target architecture for its plant maintenance systems eight months ago and has been running against it since. The main plant's throughput profile has shifted, a regulator has issued new rules on machine-data retention, and two of the assumptions about supplier integration no longer hold. Plant managers are reporting improvised fixes that were never designed, and programme staff cannot tell if they should keep executing the approved plan or reopen it. What should the practice do with what it has learned?
- A. Weigh the new evidence and the workarounds, then decide whether to re-enter the ADM.
- B. Continue executing the approved plan and revisit the assumptions at the annual review.
- C. Ask plant managers to document their workarounds and route them to the programme office.
- D. Suspend all programme work and rebaseline the whole target before anything resumes.
Answer: A. Option A is the marked best answer at 5 points because the final phase exists to watch the running architecture, take in evidence about how it is behaving, and judge whether the accumulation of change justifies another pass through the method. Weighing the workarounds alongside the regulatory shift is what produces that judgement. Option C takes 3 points: documenting the workarounds gives the practice the evidence it needs, yet routing them to the programme office stops short of any decision. Option B is allowed 1 point, since waiting for the annual review keeps delivery moving while the approved assumptions continue to decay. Option D is ranked last at 0 points, because suspending all programme work halts value without first establishing what must change.