Free VMware 2V0-13.25 Actual Exam Questions - Question 14 Discussion

This one feels like B makes the most sense as the actual mitigation step. Sure, C helps spot the issue, but just knowing about the skill gap doesn’t reduce the risk by itself. You need to do something about it, and training existing staff covers that. Hiring more people (A) or using a third party (D) might help, but they don’t address the assumption directly. So, putting in time and money to upskill the current team is the right move here. B seems like the practical way to handle the risk once you accept it exists.

D imo, because bringing in a third-party company can immediately bridge the skill gap without relying solely on existing staff’s abilities. While assessing skills (C) or training (B) helps in the long term, the question focuses on mitigation of immediate risk, and outsourcing setup or support reduces the dependency on current staff’s skill level. Hiring more staff with the same skills (A) doesn’t fix the underlying problem if those skills aren’t aligned with the new infrastructure. So, D feels like a clear way to manage the risk directly.

C imo, you have to confirm the actual skills gap before doing anything else. Without knowing what’s missing, training or hiring could be off target and waste resources. Assessing first gives a clear direction on what needs fixing. If you jump straight to B or A, you might be guessing and not solving the real problem. D feels more like outsourcing than mitigating the risk related to staff skills themselves. So checking skills first is the logical step here.

Maybe D here, because if the existing staff aren’t skilled enough, bringing in a third party to handle the deployment and configuration takes that risk off the table immediately. Training (B) or assessing skills (C) are good steps, but they don’t guarantee the design will be operated properly right away. D kind of sidesteps that problem by getting experts involved from the start. Plus, it could free up internal staff to learn later without risking downtime or errors during rollout.

It’s B because the risk is about skill gaps, so training directly tackles that.

Option C, since you must first confirm the skills gap before planning any training or hiring.

Makes sense to start with C to confirm the risk before spending on training. C

C imo is the smarter move here since you can’t fix what you don’t know. Jumping straight to training (B) might waste time and money if you’re not sure what skills are lacking. By assessing first, you get a clear picture of the gaps and can tailor your training or hiring effectively. Without that info, you’re basically guessing, which isn’t a solid risk mitigation strategy.

Good point, but C helps identify the risk before fixing it, so C.

B tbh makes more sense as a mitigation step because it directly addresses the risk by ensuring the staff gain the right skills. C is more of an assessment, which is important but doesn't reduce the risk itself—just highlights it. Training existing staff means the architect acknowledges the risk and actively works to fix it rather than just spotting it. Hiring more people like the current staff (A) won't help if everyone lacks the necessary skills, and calling in a third party (D) might be a workaround but doesn’t build internal capability.

I’d go with C first to find out the real skill gaps before deciding on training or hiring. Knowing the actual problem is key.