According to the Government Article on the Scaled Agile Framework website, feature progress charts and burn-up charts are two visual reporting tools that can be used to help maintain fiduciary tracking of government technology programs. The article states that “SAFe provides a wide array of metrics and management tools to monitor program performance. Other metrics—such as feature progress charts, ART Kanban boards, burn-up charts, and continuous flow diagrams (Figure 3)—make program performance highly visible and transparent, enabling better fiduciary control.” Therefore, the correct answers are C, feature progress charts, and D, burn-up charts. The other options are not accurate, as they are not the visual reporting tools that can be used to help maintain fiduciary tracking of government technology programs. Detailed spreadsheets (A) are not visual tools, but rather data sources that can be used to create visual reports. Pro formas (B) are financial statements that project future outcomes, not track current performance. Integrated master schedules (E) are traditional project management tools that show the dependencies and milestones of various tasks, not the value delivery and progress of features.

According to the Roadmap article on the Scaled Agile Framework website, in a SAFe Roadmap, only the first PI is committed. The article states that “The committed PI shows the results of the teams’ most recent PI Planning event where they committed to event the program’s PI Objectives. The forecast may provide the deliverables and milestones for the following two PIs.” Therefore, the correct answer is A, the first one. The other options are not accurate, as they imply that more than one PI is committed, which is not the case. The roadmap is a forecast, not a guarantee, of future PIs.

According to the Government Article on the Scaled Agile Framework website, using firm fixed price contracts may significantly affect lead time for systems development. The article states that “Firm fixed price (FFP) contracts are often used in government programs, but they are not well suited for Agile development. FFP contracts typically require detailed specifications and fixed scope, which are incompatible with the iterative and adaptive nature of Agile. FFP contracts also create a misalignment of incentives between the contractor and the government, as they reward the contractor for delivering the minimum acceptable solution, rather than the best possible value. FFP contracts also discourage collaboration and feedback, as any change in scope or requirements may trigger lengthy negotiations and contract modifications.” Therefore, the correct answer is A, using firm fixed price contracts. The other options are not accurate, as they are not the types of decisions that may significantly affect lead time for systems development. Using relative size estimating (B) is a common Agile practice that helps teams plan and track their work. Approved budget, required development tools, and dedicated team members © are enablers, not impediments, of systems development. Prioritizing the product backlog using WSJF (D) is a method of applying an economic view to optimize value delivery.