Salesforce-Platform-Strategy-Designer Practice Test Questions

Summary:
The goal of this activity is rapid, high-level ideation to gather a wide range of hypotheses from a multi-disciplinary group. The tools provided (fat markers, sticky notes, a short timer) are intentionally chosen to shape the output. The fat marker is a constraint that prevents participants from getting bogged down in details and forces them to focus on the core concept of their idea.

Correct Option:

C. They enable stakeholders to focus on generating ideas rather than detailing UI.
A fat marker is a physical constraint that makes it impossible to draw fine details, intricate diagrams, or precise user interface (UI) elements. It forces the sketcher to communicate the essence of the idea using simple shapes, stick figures, and keywords.

This directly supports the strategic goal of generating hypotheses. It keeps the focus on the "what" and "why" of the idea (e.g., "a bot that recommends products") and prevents stakeholders, especially those with a technical or design background, from prematurely designing the "how" (e.g., the specific layout of the bot's interface).

Incorrect Options:

A. They anonymize the sketches so that stakeholders cannot judge others' drawing abilities.
While using the same tool can create a level playing field, the primary reason is not anonymity. Sketches on sticky notes are often presented and discussed by their creators, so they are not truly anonymous.

The fat marker's main function is to influence the content and detail of the sketch itself, not to hide the identity of the sketcher.

B. They ensure stakeholders can fit detailed sketches on a sticky note in the allotted time.
This is the opposite of the marker's purpose. A fat marker actively prevents the creation of detailed sketches. The combination of a thick tip, a small canvas (sticky note), and a short timer is designed to inhibit detail, not to facilitate it.

Reference:
GV (Google Ventures) Design Sprint: The Sketch

The GV Design Sprint methodology, a benchmark for such activities, explicitly recommends using a fat-tip marker for sketching. The reason given is to keep sketches "crude and simple," preventing people from wasting time on visual details and instead focusing on the idea itself. This aligns perfectly with the strategic goal of generating hypotheses.

Summary:
A Consequence Scanning workshop is a proactive, ethical risk assessment exercise. Its goal is not to make a "go/no-go" decision but to systematically identify the intended and, more importantly, unintended consequences of a new initiative. The output is a prioritized list of findings that the organization can then manage proactively, deciding how to address each potential impact before proceeding with development.

Correct Option:

A. Issues to act on, influence, or monitor
This framework provides a nuanced and actionable way to manage the identified consequences.

Act on: Immediate, high-priority negative consequences that must be mitigated by changing the design or plan.

Influence: Consequences that require working with external partners or stakeholders to address.

Monitor: Potential long-term consequences that need to be tracked over time.

This outcome directly supports responsible and strategic roadmap planning by categorizing risks and defining clear next steps.

Incorrect Options:

B. Issues to stop, start, or continue
This is a framework for reviewing ongoing activities or processes (like a retrospective), not for assessing the future implications of a planned roadmap. "Stop, Start, Continue" is about changing team behaviors or practices, not about managing the external ethical and societal consequences of a product or service.

C. Issues to accept, object, or withhold
This sounds like a decision-making process for a governance or approval board (e.g., accepting a risk, objecting to a proposal, withholding resources). It is a binary judgment on issues rather than a strategic plan for managing them throughout the development lifecycle, which is the purpose of Consequence Scanning.

Reference:
The Consequence Scanning Event Guide (from the UK Government)

Summary:
The goal is to build a business case for sustainable innovation by analyzing the product's entire environmental footprint, from raw material extraction to end-of-life disposal. This requires a holistic view that captures all impacts, not just isolated improvements. The business case must be data-driven, identifying key areas for reduction and innovation across the entire value chain to demonstrate long-term value and risk mitigation.

Correct Option:

C. Extend customer journey maps to pre and post purchase.
Traditional journey maps focus on the customer's interaction with the product. Extending this map to include pre-purchase (sourcing, manufacturing, logistics) and post-purchase (usage, disposal, recycling) phases creates a full lifecycle perspective.

This visual tool helps stakeholders identify and quantify environmental impacts (like carbon emissions or waste) at every stage. By mapping these impacts, the strategy designer can build a compelling business case that shows where sustainable innovations will have the greatest effect on reducing the overall environmental footprint and strengthening the brand's value proposition.

Incorrect Options:

A. Purchase carbon offsets for energy used in manufacturing.
This is a tactical action, not a strategic framework for building a business case. Offsetting is a financial compensation for emissions, not an innovation that reduces them at the source.

A business case built on buying offsets does not demonstrate a reduction in the product's actual lifecycle impact or drive meaningful innovation in processes or materials. It is an end-of-pipe solution, not a lifecycle analysis.

B. Source cheaper, locally-grown raw materials.
While this can be a good sustainable practice (reducing transportation emissions), it is a single, tactical decision focused only on the sourcing stage.

It does not provide the comprehensive, full-lifecycle view required to build a robust business case for a sustained innovation program. The business case must consider all stages, not just one cost-saving opportunity.

Reference:
Salesforce: Sustainability Cloud - Product Carbon Footprint

This official resource discusses the importance of measuring a product's carbon footprint across its entire lifecycle (Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions) to drive meaningful action. This aligns with the principle of using a full lifecycle view (like an extended journey map) to build a data-backed business case for sustainable innovation.

Summary:
With leadership approval secured, the focus shifts from vision to execution planning. The strategy designer must now translate the high-level vision into a actionable, phased plan that demonstrates value early and evolves over time. This requires outlining the sequential stages of development, from a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) that tests core assumptions to a full-featured, mature offering. The roadmap must show the strategic progression of value delivery.

Correct Option:

A. Phases of feature development
The strategy designer needs to define the phased rollout of capabilities. This starts with an MVP containing only the essential features needed to validate the loyalty program's core value proposition with real users.

Subsequent phases then build upon the learnings from the MVP, adding more sophisticated features and scaling the program. This phased approach de-risks the investment, delivers value incrementally, and provides a clear, strategic communication tool for all stakeholders from leadership to development teams.

Incorrect Options:

B. Instrumentation and POC prototypes
Instrumentation (adding analytics) and Proof-of-Concept (POC) prototypes are tactical activities that occur within a specific phase, typically the MVP phase. A POC validates technical feasibility, while an MVP tests business value with users.

These are components of the plan, but they do not constitute the overarching structure of the roadmap from MVP to maturity. The roadmap is the high-level plan that dictates when these activities will occur.

C. Effort sizing and user story points
These are granular, tactical tools used by development teams for sprint planning and capacity management after the roadmap and high-level features for a phase have been defined.

This level of detail is too fine-grained for the strategic roadmap itself. The strategy designer focuses on the "what" and "when" of major feature sets, while development teams handle the "how" and detailed effort estimation.

Reference:
Trailhead: Create a Product Roadmap

This module explains that a product roadmap communicates the why, what, and when of a product over time. It is built by prioritizing and phasing features to show a path from initial launch to a future vision, which is exactly what is needed to inform the journey from MVP to mature offering.

Summary:
The team has a plan and understands its purpose. The next step is to create a clear, actionable document that translates this strategic alignment into operational reality with defined roles and responsibilities. This document must clarify who is accountable, responsible, consulted, and informed for key tasks and decisions to ensure the plan is executed effectively and without confusion.

Correct Option:

B. RACI
A RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) chart is the definitive tool for establishing alignment and accountability after a strategic plan is created. It is an operational document that removes ambiguity.

It explicitly defines who is Responsible for doing the work, who is Accountable for its success, who must be Consulted, and who must be Informed. This brings the workshop's plan to reality by ensuring every team member and stakeholder understands their specific role in achieving the organizational goals.

Incorrect Options:

A. V2MOM
V2MOM (Vision, Values, Methods, Obstacles, Measures) is a strategic planning tool used for setting direction and goals at the organizational or team level. It is excellent for creating alignment on "where we are going and why."

However, it is a high-level strategic framework, not an operational accountability document. It defines the destination and the path, but not the specific roles required to walk it. RACI operationalizes the "Methods" defined in a V2MOM.

C. UX vision
A UX vision is an aspirational statement or narrative that describes the desired future user experience. It is a tool for inspiration and strategic alignment within the design team and with stakeholders on the "what."

Like the V2MOM, it sets the direction but lacks the granularity to define accountability and responsibilities for execution. It does not answer "who does what" to make the vision a reality.

Reference:
Salesforce Trailhead: Build a Team Agreement

While focused on team agreements, this module covers the importance of defining roles and responsibilities for effective collaboration. The RACI model is a standard industry practice for this purpose, directly translating strategic plans into clear accountability.

Summary:
A project with budget constraints and high initial ambiguity requires a lean, agile, and strategic approach to team composition. The primary challenge is navigating uncertainty and defining a clear path forward, not executing a pre-defined plan. Therefore, the team's skills must be prioritized to address this core challenge of problem-solving and discovery before scaling up for execution.

Correct Option:

C. Bring in team members with strong problem-solving skills.
In the early, ambiguous stages, the team's main task is discovery, synthesis, and defining the problem space. Team members with strong problem-solving skills thrive in this environment.

These individuals are adaptable, can work with incomplete information, use divergent and convergent thinking, and help create clarity from chaos. This approach is cost-effective for a constrained budget, as a small, skilled team can efficiently chart the course before more specialized (and potentially costly) roles are needed for later phases.

Incorrect Options:

A. Define additional leads for each functional area.
Adding multiple leads for undefined functional areas creates overhead and is premature. Without a clear direction, these leads would lack a clear mandate, leading to potential conflict and wasted budget.

This structure is better suited for a later phase when the project's scope and functional needs are well-understood and require coordinated execution across established disciplines.

B. Staff heavily from the development phase until the go-to-market phase.
Heavy staffing during the early, unclear design phase is inefficient and costly, especially under budget constraints. Developers cannot build effectively until the strategy and design are clarified.

This approach would burn through the limited budget on roles that are idle or inefficient early on. The correct sequence is to first invest in strategic problem-solving to define the what, then staff development to build the how.

Reference:
Interaction Design Foundation: The Value of Design Thinking in Business

Summary:
The team has feedback indicating a market shift towards sustainability, but leadership needs a strategic business rationale, not just a tactical action, to justify the investment. The principle must connect the value of sustainability to long-term business resilience and competitive positioning, moving it from a cost center to a strategic advantage that aligns with evolving employee and consumer values.

Correct Option:

C. Focus on creating enduring advantage
This is a high-level, values-based design principle that directly addresses leadership's need for a business rationale. It frames sustainability not as an expense, but as a critical investment in the company's future.

An "enduring advantage" means building long-term brand loyalty, attracting top talent, future-proofing against regulatory changes, and differentiating from competitors. This principle justifies the investment by linking sustainable practices directly to durable market leadership and financial resilience.

Incorrect Options:

A. Create products from recycled materials.
This is a specific tactic or feature, not a guiding design principle. While it is a sustainable action, it does not provide the strategic "why" needed to justify the broader investment to leadership.

Presenting this as the rationale would lead to a debate about the cost and feasibility of recycled materials, rather than a discussion about the strategic imperative of sustainability for the brand's future.

B. Use energy from renewable resources.
Similar to option A, this is a tactical operational decision. It addresses one aspect of the supply chain but does not encompass the full value proposition of a sustainable product line.

This tactic alone does not build a compelling case for how sustainability will create a stronger brand or a more resilient business model, which is what leadership needs to hear.

Reference:
Salesforce: Sustainability as a Business Strategy

Summary:
The core issue is a misalignment between internal teams (Sales, Support, Development) who have different perspectives on the product and its problems. The strategy designer needs to bridge this gap by creating a shared, empathetic understanding of the customer's reality. The solution must center everyone on the same foundational problem—the poor user experience—using authentic, human-centered evidence that all teams can relate to.

Correct Option:

A. Share stories from customer research to create a common understanding of challenges.
Customer stories, such as quotes, interview clips, or journey map excerpts, provide an unbiased, shared source of truth. They translate abstract complaints ("complicated UX") into concrete, relatable human struggles.

This approach builds empathy and aligns the teams by making the customer's pain visible and undeniable to everyone. It helps the sales and support teams feel heard and shows the development team the tangible human impact of the technical risk, creating a unified "why" for change that transcends departmental goals.

Incorrect Options:

B. Create a prioritized product roadmap to ensure future releases address known challenges.
A roadmap is a plan of action, but creating one before achieving alignment on the core problem is premature. Without a shared understanding, the roadmap will be contested, with each team advocating for their own priorities.

This approach skips the vital step of building collective empathy and would likely perpetuate the existing conflict rather than resolve it.

C. Define acceptance criteria and acceptance testing to validate intended outcomes.
This is a solution-focused, tactical step that occurs later in the development process, after the team has already aligned on what to build. It defines "done," but does not help the teams agree on what needs to be done and why.

Starting here would ignore the fundamental alignment problem and likely increase friction with the development team, who would see it as imposing a solution without addressing their concerns.

Reference:
Trailhead: Build Shared Understanding with Your Team

Summary:
The challenge statement is specifically focused on empowering "people who are new to fitness" to "increase their strength." Success metrics must directly measure the behavior and outcome for this target user group. The metrics should evaluate whether the service is effectively onboarding and engaging new users and whether it is leading to the desired outcome of increased strength training, rather than just measuring initial acquisition or general brand sentiment.

Correct Option:

C. Increase in new user activity and connected weight utilization
New User Activity: This directly measures engagement from the target audience (new-to-fitness users). An increase shows the service is successfully activating and retaining them.

Connected Weight Utilization: This measures the core behavior that leads to "increasing strength"—consistent use of the connected equipment. A rise in utilization indicates users are adopting the habit of strength training, which is the ultimate goal of the "How Might We" challenge.

Incorrect Options:

A. New user activations and connected weight sales
These are acquisition and sales metrics, not success metrics for the service's empowerment goal. High activations and sales show initial interest but do not measure whether the service is effectively helping new users build strength or if they are even using the product after purchase.

B. Increase in user referrals and net promoter score (NPS) rating
NPS and referrals are excellent measures of overall customer satisfaction and loyalty, but they are lagging indicators. They are a result of success, not a direct measure of the empowerment and strength-building outcome for new users. A user might be satisfied but not have actually increased their strength.

Reference:
Trailhead: Define Success with Metrics

Summary:
Feasibility assesses whether a solution can be successfully built, implemented, and maintained with the organization's current or attainable resources. After establishing that a solution is desirable (users want it) and viable (it makes business sense), the strategy designer must evaluate the practical constraints of technology, resources, and operational capabilities to determine if it can be realistically executed.

Correct Option:

B. Distribution channels, capabilities, and potential partners
This option best encapsulates the three pillars of feasibility:

Capabilities: Evaluates the internal technical skills, staff, and tools required to build and maintain the solution.

Distribution Channels: Assesses how the solution will be delivered and supported (e.g., online store, mobile app, partner networks).

Potential Partners: Identifies if external partners are needed to fill capability gaps or assist with distribution and scaling.

Incorrect Options:

A. User desirability, company viability, and deployment stability
This option mixes the three core innovation questions. Desirability and Viability are pre-requisites that have already been confirmed, as stated in the prompt. "Deployment stability" is only one small aspect of technical feasibility, not the broader assessment.

C. Business ROI, data analytics, and customer engagement
Business ROI is part of Viability, not Feasibility. Data analytics and customer engagement are tools for measuring success and understanding desirability. They do not address the core feasibility question of "Can we build and deliver this?"

Reference:
IDEO.org: The Three Lenses of Human-Centered Design: https://www.designkit.org/

While not a direct Salesforce link, this is a foundational design thinking framework. It breaks innovation into Desirability, Feasibility, and Viability. Feasibility is defined as the assessment of what is functionally possible within the foreseeable future, which aligns with evaluating capabilities, distribution, and partnerships.