CAPM Practice: Determine how to prepare and execute task management steps

Consistent 70% completion suggests the team is systematically overcommitting. Root causes to investigate: are estimates systematically low? Is team capacity (accounting for meetings, overhead) being accurately calculated? Are stories adequately refined before sprint planning? Are unexpected scope additions occurring mid-sprint? The fix is empirical: track what percentage of sprint estimates were accurate and recalibrate, not apply arbitrary reductions.

**Why not B:** Stricter management oversight treats a systemic estimation and capacity problem as a discipline or motivation problem, which it is not. Adding oversight pressure to a team that is already overcommitting will not improve estimation accuracy and may harm psychological safety, making retrospective candor less likely. Scrum is a self-organizing model — the fix should come from within the team process.

**Why not C:** Extending sprints breaks the fixed cadence that Scrum depends on for predictability, feedback loops, and empirical planning. If sprints are extended whenever work is incomplete, velocity data becomes meaningless and release forecasting becomes impossible. The sprint length should remain fixed; the amount of work committed should be adjusted instead.

**Why not D:** Removing low-priority items at sprint start treats the symptom rather than the root cause, and it changes sprint scope after planning has concluded. If the team cannot complete what it plans, the backlog item removal simply masks the underlying overcommitment problem without improving future estimation. The product owner's role is to prioritize the backlog before sprint planning, not to retroactively reduce scope.