Budgeting mainframe subject-matter experts for the full duration of a modernisation programme, rather than only its early discovery phase, draws a question in design review. What is the best justification?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Keep SMEs in the budget because new generated code and docs keep raising business-meaning and edge-case questions. That validation doesn't stop after discovery.
Full Explanation
The best justification is that business-meaning and edge-case questions are prompted by each new piece of generated output, so SME input is needed on an ongoing basis rather than being front-loaded into a single phase. The claim that budgeting for the full duration is merely a contractual formality with no bearing on the actual work is incorrect because the justification is substantive, not merely contractual; the work genuinely continues. The claim that SMEs are needed to operate the transformation tooling itself throughout the programme is incorrect because SMEs contribute business knowledge, not operation of the transformation tooling, which is a separate skill. The claim that SMEs are required to approve every commit made by the Java development team is incorrect because requiring SME approval on every individual commit is a far heavier process than what is actually needed; their role is confirming meaning and edge cases, not gatekeeping every change. For the exam, ongoing SME involvement is justified by continued need for business validation across the programme.