CAPM Practice: Determine how to plan project iterations

When teams consistently under-deliver, they should inspect and adapt — analyzing why work isn't completed and using actual velocity data to make more realistic commitments in future iterations.

**Why not B:** Adding team members may increase capacity over time, but it introduces new complexity — onboarding overhead, communication costs, and temporary productivity dips (Brooks's Law). Before scaling the team, the root cause of underdelivery must be understood; more people will not fix estimation problems, unclear requirements, or process inefficiencies.

**Why not C:** Extending iteration length avoids the problem rather than solving it. Longer iterations reduce feedback cycles and conflict with a core agile principle — the team should learn to plan accurately within a fixed timebox, not stretch the box to accommodate poor planning. The goal is realistic commitment, not more time to fall short.

**Why not D:** Removing or adjusting story points retroactively to improve reported metrics is a form of data manipulation that destroys the integrity of velocity tracking. It provides false signals for future planning and violates the transparency principle of agile. Honest velocity data — even if unflattering — is essential for meaningful improvement.