The correct answer is C .
In AgilePM, the strongest way to combine agile leadership with practical delivery control is to create direct collaboration between the Delivery Teams around the work that must fit together. In this case, the Spa infrastructure team and the Spa operations/treatments team are working on interdependent outputs. The best way to keep those outputs aligned is for the teams to agree shared acceptance criteria for the items that depend on one another.
That makes C the best answer because it is both:
agile in leadership style , since it empowers the teams to collaborate and define quality expectations together, and
practical in execution , since shared acceptance criteria give both teams a concrete basis for building compatible deliverables.
For example, if a hydrotherapy treatment is planned, the infrastructure team and treatment team may need shared criteria covering:
Without this shared definition, one team could deliver something technically complete but not actually usable by the other.
Why C is correct from an AgilePM perspective:
AgilePM supports:
collaboration across roles and teams ,
shared understanding of requirements and outcomes ,
fitness for business purpose ,
early clarification of dependencies ,
and empowered teams working within a coordinated framework .
Shared acceptance criteria are a very effective mechanism because they:
turn vague alignment into clear, testable expectations,
expose dependency risks early,
reduce rework,
improve communication across teams,
and help ensure the integrated solution works as intended.
Why the other options are less suitable:
A. Empower Team Leaders to resolve dependencies, escalating major issues to Sukra for a solution-wide view if needed.
This is reasonable, but it is not the best answer. It relies on “Team Leaders” rather than direct team collaboration, and it focuses more on escalation management than on creating a shared working agreement. AgilePM prefers empowering the teams themselves and resolving dependencies through collaboration as close to the work as possible.
B. Empower Team Leaders to independently handle alignment through informal discussions, documenting key decisions for later review.
This is weaker because “informal discussions” alone are too loose for managing important inter-team dependencies. Alignment needs something more concrete than conversations that are only documented afterward.
D. Encourage Delivery Teams to define shared acceptance criteria for interdependent deliverables and Brinda approving.
This is close, but the addition of Brinda approving makes it less agile. Brinda, as Business Visionary, is important for vision and business alignment, but she should not be drawn into approving detailed inter-team acceptance criteria unless there is a specific business reason. This risks slowing down delivery and reducing team empowerment.
E. Hold a joint Retrospective after each Sprint to review alignment and identify remedial actions to ensure alignment.
Retrospectives are valuable, but this is mainly reactive . It helps improve after issues appear, whereas shared acceptance criteria help prevent misalignment before or during delivery.
F. Hold a joint Retrospective after each Sprint so Team Leaders can share learning and provide feedback.
Again, useful but not the strongest answer. It supports learning, but not direct practical alignment of interdependent deliverables.
G. Use hierarchical reporting where decisions would be documented collaboratively between Brinda Vyas, Mira Bachar, Hira and Sukra Aroon.
This is not very AgilePM-aligned because it introduces a more bureaucratic reporting structure. AgilePM favors collaboration and timely decision-making over hierarchical control.
H. Use hierarchical reporting where changes can be escalated and approved quickly allowing the Delivery Teams to progress.
This is also too command-and-control in style. Agile leadership aims to reduce unnecessary hierarchy and enable teams to work together effectively, not depend on approval chains as the main coordination mechanism.
AgilePM perspective:
This question is really about balancing two needs:
leadership through empowerment and collaboration , and
practical governance through clear quality expectations .
Option C does both. It avoids excessive control, but it also avoids vague coordination. It gives the teams a practical tool to align their work while maintaining agility.
Therefore, the best AgilePM answer is C .
