Explanation:

Why B is Correct:
The primary purpose of an Impact & Effort Matrix is to serve as a prioritization tool. It helps teams visually plot and compare initiatives (like projects or features) against two key axes:
Impact (Y-axis): The potential positive value a project will deliver. This value is measured against the key business goals and strategic outcomes defined during the project framing and discovery phases (e.g., "increase user adoption," "improve customer satisfaction scores," "generate revenue").
Effort (X-axis): The estimated investment required to complete the project (e.g., time, resources, cost, complexity).
By plotting projects on this 2x2 grid, teams can objectively identify "quick wins" (high impact, low effort), major projects (high impact, high effort), fill-ins (low impact, low effort), and avoid time-wasters (low impact, high effort). This directly enables prioritization aligned with strategic goals.

Why A is Incorrect:
While the matrix does facilitate stakeholder discussion, its purpose is more specific. It is not for comparing "products" in a general sense, but for comparing initiatives to determine the order of execution. The predefined criteria are specifically Impact and Effort, not a broader, undefined set of criteria.

Why C is Incorrect:
Classifying projects by urgency is typically the purpose of a different framework, such as the MoSCoW method (Must-have, Should-have, Could-have, Won't-have) or a simple Priority Scale (e.g., Critical, High, Medium, Low). Urgency is often a separate input that might influence the perception of "Impact" but is not the direct dimension being measured by this specific tool.

Key Concept Reference:
This question tests your understanding of prioritization techniques a Strategy Designer must employ to ensure the team is working on the most valuable tasks that align with business strategy. The Impact/Effort matrix is a foundational tool in a strategist's toolkit for making rational, data-informed decisions about where to allocate limited resources.

Reference:
The use of prioritization matrices like this is a best practice covered in Salesforce architect and strategy resources. It aligns with the core principle of focusing on Outcome-Driven Delivery—ensuring that the highest impact work for the business is delivered efficiently.

Explanation:

A storyboard is a visual tool that uses a sequence of drawings or images to tell a story. In the context of strategy design, it's used to visualize a user's journey or experience with a product or service. By creating a storyboard, the strategy designer can illustrate the new patient experience step-by-step, including interactions with the application for both patients and doctors. This makes abstract ideas concrete and easy to understand for all stakeholders, helping them to evaluate, prioritize, and align on a shared vision.

The other options are incorrect:
A. Cross-functional survey:
A survey is used to collect feedback and data from a group of people, but it is not an effective tool for communicating a complex, shared vision or narrative. It helps in gathering information, not in presenting a new experience in an easily digestible, visual format.
C. Creative brief:
A creative brief is a document that outlines the goals, target audience, and key requirements for a creative project. While it helps align a team on project objectives, it does not visually depict the user's experience or facilitate a shared understanding of a new journey in the way a storyboard does.

Reference:
Salesforce Trailhead, "Create a Vision for Your Strategy":(This module discusses tools for communicating a future vision. Storyboarding is a recommended technique for making a vision tangible and relatable, which is precisely what is needed to align patients and doctors.)

Explanation:

When stakeholders undervalue UX research, the most effective way to shift their mindset is to connect research outcomes directly to their own goals — whether those are revenue growth, customer retention, operational efficiency, or product adoption. This approach:

Builds trust and relevance by showing how research supports business outcomes.
Encourages collaboration rather than resistance.
Helps convert skeptics into advocates by demonstrating measurable impact.
This is a core principle in Salesforce’s Strategy Designer mindset, which emphasizes stakeholder alignment and outcome-driven design.

❌ Why the other options fall short:
A. High-fidelity prototypes: These can impress visually, but they don’t address the root issue — stakeholders’ lack of understanding of why research matters.
B. Strictly align to business requirements: This limits innovation and ignores user needs. Strategy Designers are meant to bridge business goals and user outcomes, not choose one over the other.

📚 Reference:
Salesforce Trailhead’s Predictable Process module outlines tools like Stakeholder Ecosystem Mapping and the UX Critique Tool, which help teams align research with stakeholder priorities and foster inclusive, outcome-oriented conversations.

Explanation:

In brainstorming, the primary rule is to generate as many ideas as possible without judgment in the early stages. Strategy designers encourage collaboration, creativity, and “yes, and…” thinking where participants build on each other’s contributions.
This ensures:
A more open, creative environment.
Divergent thinking → leading to more innovative solutions.
Psychological safety so participants feel comfortable sharing.
Therefore, the designer should encourage participants to build on proposed ideas, not critique or filter them too early.

❌ Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Emphasize critique of proposed ideas
→ Critique kills creativity early. Criticism comes later in the process (convergent thinking phase).
B. Explore qualitative assessment of proposed ideas
→ Assessment and evaluation are important, but not during brainstorming. That step comes afterward when prioritizing or refining ideas.

📖 Reference:
IDEO Brainstorming Rules → “Defer judgment” and “Build on the ideas of others.”
Salesforce Strategy Designer mindset principles → Emphasize collaboration and creativity in workshops.

⚡ Exam Tip:
When you see brainstorming-related questions, always look for the answer that emphasizes creativity, building, collaboration, and no early judgment.

Explanation:

Why B is Correct:
The "Jobs To Be Done" (JTBD) framework is a tool for understanding the fundamental needs and motivations of a user. It focuses on the why behind a user's actions—the "job" they are "hiring" a product or service to do. In the Design Thinking process, this deep understanding of the user's core problems and needs is synthesized and articulated during the Define phase. The goal of the Define phase is to create a clear, actionable problem statement based on the insights gathered in the Empathize phase. A JTBD statement (e.g., "Help me feel recognized for my loyalty so I continue to choose this brand over others") is a powerful outcome of this phase that frames the problem in a human-centered way and guides the subsequent ideation.

Why A is Incorrect:
The Prototype phase is about creating inexpensive, scaled-down versions of the product or specific features found within it to investigate the ideas generated in the Ideate phase. It is a solutioning activity, not a problem-definition activity like JTBD.

Why C is Incorrect:
The Deploy phase (often also called "Test" in many Design Thinking models) is about releasing the finished product to market and gathering feedback. This is the final stage of the cycle, far removed from the initial problem definition work where JTBD is used.

Reference:
This question tests your knowledge of the Design Thinking phases and the appropriate use of the Jobs To Be Done framework.
Empathize: Conduct research to understand user needs and behaviors.
Define: Synthesize research findings to define the core problem. This is where Jobs To Be Done are created.
Ideate: Brainstorm a wide range of potential solutions.
Prototype: Build tangible representations of ideas.
Test/Deploy: Validate solutions with users and release them.

Reference:
This aligns with the teachings of the Trailhead Module: "Create a Platform Strategy" and the Salesforce Innovation Lifecycle, which emphasizes defining the problem from the user's perspective using frameworks like JTBD before generating solutions. The JTBD theory is a well-established practice in product strategy and human-centered design.

Explanation:

V2MOM (Vision, Values, Methods, Obstacles, Measures) is a strategic alignment framework, originally developed and used by Salesforce, that is specifically designed to address the kind of siloed behavior described in the scenario.

Here's a breakdown of why it's the right choice:
Vision and Values: V2MOM begins with a clear, shared vision for the entire company or a large initiative. This "North Star" helps all teams understand the ultimate goal and the principles that guide their work, moving them away from a narrow, team-specific focus.
Shared Methods: The key component for this scenario is the "Methods." By creating shared methods that require collaboration between different product teams, the V2MOM framework forces them to work together to achieve a common goal. This directly counters the siloed behavior by making cross-departmental collaboration a necessary and explicit part of their work plan.
Obstacles and Measures: Identifying obstacles and defining clear, measurable outcomes (Measures) that are tied to the shared methods ensures that progress is transparent and that teams are held accountable for their collaborative efforts.

The other options are less effective:
B. Roadmap of cross-product features:
While a roadmap can show how features from different products connect, it is a document and not a process for collaboration. It doesn't inherently force the teams to work together and could still be created and managed in a siloed manner.
C. Annual leadership summit:
An annual summit can be a good way to kick off initiatives and align leaders, but it is a one-time event. It doesn't provide the ongoing, structured framework needed to nurture and sustain day-to-day cross-departmental collaboration. The problem in the scenario is a persistent one, requiring a persistent solution.

Explanation:

🧠 Why this builds psychological safety:
Encouraging team members to share personal experiences fosters vulnerability, empathy, and trust — all key ingredients of psychological safety. When people feel safe to be authentic, they’re more likely to:

Speak up with ideas or concerns
Take creative risks
Collaborate openly across disciplines
Navigate conflict with curiosity rather than defensiveness

This aligns with Salesforce’s Fearless Teaming principles, which emphasize creating space for courage over comfort, and building inclusive environments where diverse perspectives are welcomed.

❌ Why the other options fall short:
B. Ask everyone their expected level of project involvement: This is useful for logistics, but it doesn’t foster emotional connection or safety.
C. Ask everyone to introduce themselves via title and greatest success: This can unintentionally reinforce hierarchy or competition, which may inhibit openness.

💡 Pro Tip for Strategy Designers:
Kick off cross-disciplinary initiatives with a team development session that includes:
Personal storytelling
Empathy-building exercises
Shared norms for communication and critique
A commitment to learning from tension rather than avoiding it

Explanation:

The Lightning Usage App provides insights into how Lightning pages and components are performing, including:
Page load times.
Which components are slow or unresponsive.
Usage trends by users, devices, and browsers.

This tool is designed for admins and designers to diagnose performance issues in Lightning Experiences and LWCs, making it the best first step for Cloud Kicks’ team.

❌ Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Run the Salesforce Optimizer
→ The Optimizer evaluates overall Salesforce org configuration (unused fields, profiles, storage, security issues, etc.). It does not provide detailed performance metrics for Lightning components.
C. Create a case with Salesforce support
→ This is a last resort if there’s a confirmed Salesforce platform bug. In this scenario, the issue is likely with custom component design or performance bottlenecks, so the team should first use internal diagnostic tools.

📖 Reference:
Salesforce Help – Lightning Usage App → gives visibility into performance and adoption metrics.
Salesforce Strategy Designer content emphasizes data-driven diagnostics before escalation.

⚡ Exam Tip:
When troubleshooting Salesforce UX or component performance, always think of the Lightning Usage App first. Optimizer = org health, Usage App = performance monitoring.

Summary:
The question focuses on the tools a Strategy Designer uses to create stakeholder alignment around a new product vision. A narrative is powerful for building an emotional, high-level understanding, but it must be supported by concrete, logical evidence to fully secure buy-in from stakeholders who are responsible for budgets, resources, and execution. The goal is to complement the "why" with the "what" and "so what."

Correct Option:

B. The strategic case including a breakdown of features and why they meet audience needs.
The strategic case provides the logical and business-focused justification that supports the inspirational narrative. It translates the vision into actionable components.

By breaking down features and explicitly linking them to specific audience needs, the Strategy Designer demonstrates a deep understanding of the problem and validates that the proposed solution is desirable, viable, and feasible. This evidence-based approach is critical for convincing stakeholders to invest resources.

Incorrect Options:

A. Incentives to motivate internal stakeholders to align with the proposed future state
While incentives can be a tool for motivation, they are not a primary artifact a Strategy Designer creates to build alignment for a vision. Relying on incentives suggests a lack of inherent buy-in for the strategy itself.

True, sustainable alignment comes from a shared belief in the strategic direction, not from external rewards. The focus should be on the merit of the strategy, not on compensating stakeholders for supporting it.

C. A roadmap to minimize miscommunication about milestones in the build process.
A roadmap is a vital planning and communication tool, but it is a downstream artifact. Presenting a detailed roadmap too early, before the strategic case is agreed upon, can lead stakeholders to focus prematurely on timelines and deliverables rather than the strategic "why."

Alignment must first be achieved on the vision and strategic rationale; the roadmap is then built to execute that aligned-upon strategy.

Reference:
Trailhead: Create a Strategic Narrative

Summary:
The core challenge is to present research findings that directly contradict a stakeholder's strongly held belief in a way that is collaborative and constructive, not confrontational. The goal is to transition the stakeholder from a fixed hypothesis to a shared understanding of the real customer problem, making them a partner in redefining the solution. This requires a forum that fosters dialogue and collective sense-making.

Correct Option:

C. In an insights workshop with plenty of time for group discussion
An insights workshop is specifically designed for this scenario. It transforms the presentation of findings from a one-way report into a collaborative discovery process.

By sharing raw data (like video clips or quotes) and facilitating a group discussion, the team allows stakeholders to "uncover" the insights themselves. This builds shared ownership of the new direction and gently guides them away from their initial hypothesis without directly telling them they are wrong, thereby minimizing defensiveness.

Incorrect Options:
A. In a walking deck with video clips from research sessions
While a deck with video evidence is data-rich, it is primarily a one-way, presentation-style format. It positions the design team as "proving the stakeholder wrong," which can create defensiveness and shut down productive conversation.

The stakeholder may become focused on critiquing the data or methodology rather than absorbing the core insight. It lacks the crucial element of facilitated dialogue to navigate this challenging feedback.
B. In a 'How Might We" statement to encourage new ideas
An "HMW" statement is an excellent tool for the ideation phase that comes after alignment has been reached on the core insights. It is premature here.

Jumping directly to "How Might We" skips the vital step of building a shared belief in what the problem actually is. Without this shared understanding, any new ideas will be built on the same faulty foundation.

Reference:
Trailhead: Build Shared Understanding with Your Team

Summary:
The strategy designer's goal is to build a collaborative partnership with the manufacturing team to identify sustainability opportunities. The approach must be analytical and evidence-based, focusing on the company's specific context rather than generic external data. A successful case is built on a shared understanding of internal processes and their environmental impact, which can then be rationally assessed for risk and opportunity.

Correct Option:

B. Analyze internal systems through the lens of environmental risk.
This approach is objective, data-driven, and directly relevant to the manufacturing team's operations. By analyzing their own systems and processes, the designer can identify specific, tangible areas for improvement (e.g., waste, energy use, supply chain).

This method builds a rational case based on internal facts, not external pressure. It demonstrates an understanding of the team's world and frames sustainability as an operational efficiency and risk mitigation issue, which is more likely to gain their buy-in and partnership.

Incorrect Options:

A. Meet with the manufacturing team and give them feasible solutions.
This is a prescriptive approach that risks alienating the team. Arriving with pre-defined solutions without first understanding their unique challenges, constraints, and expertise shows a lack of collaboration.

The manufacturing team are the subject matter experts on their own processes. The strategy designer's role is to facilitate discovery and build a case with them, not to dictate solutions to them.

C. Present research on climate change to the manufacturing team.
While the information may be factually correct, this approach is likely to be ineffective. The manufacturing team is already aware of the broad concept of climate change.

This tactic can come across as lecturing or shaming, and it fails to connect the global issue to the team's specific, day-to-day responsibilities and opportunities for improvement within Cloud Kicks.

Reference:
Trailhead: Strategy Designer - Discover the Current State

Summary:
The question focuses on measuring the direct outcome of a user experience (UX) redesign for an online store. While business metrics like sales are important, a pure UX metric should directly reflect the user's perception of the interaction with the site itself. The goal is to find a metric that is sensitive to changes in usability, design, and flow, rather than broader market or commercial factors.

Correct Option:

C. Customer Satisfaction Score (CSAT)
CSAT is a direct and immediate measure of user satisfaction with a specific interaction or experience, such as using a newly designed website. It typically asks a question like "How satisfied were you with your experience today?"

This makes it an ideal metric for a UX redesign because it captures the user's subjective feeling about the site's ease of use, navigation, and design. A successful UX improvement should be directly reflected in a higher CSAT score following a site visit or transaction

Incorrect Options:

A. Increased transaction volume
While a primary business goal, transaction volume is a commercial outcome influenced by many factors beyond UX, such as marketing campaigns, pricing, product availability, and seasonal demand.

An increase in sales does not conclusively prove the UX was better; it could be due to a successful ad campaign. Conversely, a great UX might not immediately overcome a poor pricing strategy. It is an indirect, not a direct, measure of user experience.

B. Net Adoption Score (NAS)
Net Adoption Score is not a standard industry metric for measuring customer experience. It appears to be a distractor item.

The well-known standard is Net Promoter Score (NPS), which measures customer loyalty and the likelihood to recommend a brand. NPS is a broader, relationship metric that is less sensitive to a specific UX change than CSAT.

Reference:
Salesforce Help: What’s the Difference Between CSAT, CES, and NPS?