Which option would not be an appropriate approach to address an impediment in Scrum?

• A. Elevating the impediment to the Scrum Master to remove
• B. Reframing the impediment as a risk and addressing it in backlog refinement
• C. Adjusting priorities to work around the impediment
• D. Extending the Sprint or modifying the DoD to mask the impediment

Answer: (D)

Addressing impediments effectively is about transparency and timely resolution within Scrum. Elevating the impediment to the Scrum Master to remove is appropriate—the Scrum Master is responsible for removing blockers that prevent the team from delivering. Reframing the impediment as a risk and addressing it in backlog refinement is also appropriate, since risks should be identified and discussed with the Product Backlog to plan mitigations and adjust work if needed. Adjusting priorities to work around the impediment is a valid, practical move to maintain progress and value delivery while the root cause is resolved.

Extending the Sprint or modifying the Definition of Done to mask the impediment is not appropriate. Timeboxing is fundamental in Scrum, and extending the Sprint would undermine predictability and cadence. Altering the DoD to hide a problem reduces quality and transparency, defeating the purpose of the inspect-and-adapt cycle.