Certified-Strategy-Designer Exam Dumps - Salesforce Strategy Designer Questions and Answers

The best way to gain alignment from a key decision maker who is neutral or detracting from a project is to set up a conversation with them to name the challenge and listen to their objections, as this shows respect and empathy and allows for mutual understanding and feedback. Asking the sponsor to speak to them on behalf of the project or emailing them reiterating project status may not address their concerns or motivations effectively.

The technique that should be used to frame the design challenge on the right problems is to construct “How might we…” questions. “How might we…” questions are a way to reframe problems into opportunities for innovation. They are open-ended, optimistic, and user-centered, and they help define the scope and direction of the design project. Designing “For an optimal experience…” questions or creating “As a user, I should…” questions may not be effective for framing the design challenge, as they may imply or limit potential solutions.

Dot voting is a democratic and quick way to gauge group consensus on the most valued ideas. It narrows down numerous ideas to those most critical to the group, facilitating focused discussions on priorities and driving alignment on strategic opportunities.

Before framing the problem, the strategy designer should ask what problem(s) CK is trying to solve, rather than jumping to solutions or assumptions. This helps clarify the scope and context of the challenge and identify the root causes and effects of the issue. References: https://trailhead.salesforce.com/en/content/learn/modules/salesforce-strategy-designer-certification-prep/frame-challenges-with-how-might-we-statements

The information that is missing from this challenge statement is the desired outcome. A well-written challenge statement should include three elements: who (the persona being designed for), what (the need or problem to be solved), and why (the desired outcome or benefit). For example, a better challenge statement could be: How might we increase the adaptability of our sales team to generate more revenue in a changing market? The hypothesis of the solution is not part of the challenge statement, as it is a proposed answer that needs to be tested and validated.

The best approach to increase the desire for research-driven decisions among stakeholders who misunderstand and undervalue research-driven UX design is to align UX research goals with stakeholders’ goals, as this helps demonstrate the value and relevance of research for achieving business outcomes. Creating high-fidelity prototypes or strictly aligning to stakeholders’ business requirements may not address the root cause of the lack of desire for research.

The approach that the designer should focus on is to restate business goals and show how design could be used to de-risk exploration of this opportunity. This approach can help the designer align the new product vision with the executive stakeholders’ expectations, needs, and priorities, and demonstrate how design methods and tools can help validate assumptions, identify risks, and test solutions in a saturated market. Making a presentation on design best practices or creating a clickable high fidelity prototype may not be enough to convince the executive stakeholders of the value proposition and feasibility of targeting a new market.

One way the company can embed ethical use principles into its day to day work is by using Consequence Scanning, which is an agile practice that fits within an iterative development cycle and allows organizations to consider the potential consequences of their product or service on people, communities, and the planet. Consequence Scanning helps identify and mitigate potential harms or risks, and align the product or service with the organization’s values and culture. Quantitative research or journey mapping may not be sufficient or effective for embedding ethical use principles.

The best tactic to understand the potential impacts of stakeholders on a project is stakeholder analysis, which is a systematic way of identifying and assessing the interests, expectations, and influences of various stakeholders. A stakeholder focus group or stakeholder KPIs may not capture the full spectrum of stakeholder perspectives and impacts.

The methodology that should be used to resolve conflicts and promote consensus among different business units is a prioritization matrix. A prioritization matrix is a tool to evaluate and compare requirements based on two or more criteria, such as impact, effort, urgency, or importance. Requirements that score high on the chosen criteria are usually prioritized, while requirements that score low are usually deprioritized or eliminated. A prioritization matrix can help different business units reach a common understanding and agreement on the most critical and valuable requirements for the key use cases. A journey map or a SWOT analysis may not be effective for resolving conflicts or promoting consensus, as they do not provide a clear and objective way to rank requirements.