Salesforce Revenue-Cloud-Consultant-Accredited-Professional Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Cross object formula fields are fields that reference data from related objects using lookup or master-detail relationships. They can be useful to display information from parent or child objects without creating custom code or workflows. However, using too many cross object formula fields in a Revenue Cloud project can pose some risks, such as:

Formula field data is not always available during CPQ quote calculation. This means that the formula fields may not reflect the latest values from the related objects when the quote is being generated or updated. This can cause inaccuratepricing, discounts, or taxes. To avoid this, it is recommended to use CPQ fields or custom fields instead of cross object formula fields for quote calculation. 12

They are computationally expensive. This means that the formula fields require more processing power and time to evaluate and display thedata from the related objects. This can affect the performance and responsiveness of the application, especially if there are multiple formula fields on the same object or page layout. To avoid this, it is recommended to limit the number and complexity ofcross object formula fields, and use filters or conditions to reduce the number of records that need to be evaluated. 34

They can easily exceed limits if not carefully designed and tested. This means that the formula fields can cause errors or warnings if they exceed the maximum length, number, or level of relationships allowed by Salesforce. For example, a formula field can only reference up to 10 unique relationships and span up to five levels of relationships. If these limits are exceeded, the formula field will not save or display correctly. To avoid this, it is recommended to review the formula field limits and best practices, and test the formula fields in different scenarios and environments. 

The three common CPQ design mistakes to avoid while implementing CPQ for your customer are:

A. Using price book entries to handle attribute based variationsinstead of lookup price rules: Price book entries are not designed to handle attribute-based variations. Instead, lookup price rules should be used. These rules allow you to adjust pricing based on specific product attributes, providing more flexibility and accuracy1.

C. Creating process builders and flows to pass data between fields instead of using twin field mapping: Process builders and flows can be complex and difficult to maintain. Instead, twin field mapping should be used. This feature allows you to map fields between objects, ensuring data consistency and reducing the need for custom code1.

D. Writing customizations for product selection or validation instead of using option constraints, product rules, and bundles: Customizations can be time-consuming and costly to implement and maintain. Instead, Salesforce CPQ provides built-in features like option constraints, product rules, and bundles that can handle product selection and validation. These features are designed to enforce business rules and ensure that only valid product combinations are selected1.

According to the Salesforce Revenue CloudImplementation Guide, any changes to the design document during the build phase should be communicated to the project manager, who will assess the impact of the changes on the project scope, timeline, and budget. The project manager will then decide whether to accept, reject, or defer the changes, and update the project plan accordingly. This is the best practice to ensure that the project is delivered on time, on budget, and with the expected quality and functionality. 

Implementing the lookup price rulesimmediately without consulting the project manager or the solution architect could result in errors, inconsistencies, or conflicts with theexisting design or other components of the solution. It could also cause delays or rework if the changes are not aligned with the customer’s expectations or requirements. Therefore, option B and option E are not appropriate.

Consulting with the solution architect first could help to expedite the updates to the design document, but it would still require the approval ofthe project manager and the customer before implementing the changes. Therefore, option D is not sufficient.

Communication to the customer that ongoing adjustments can be made as long as we are in the build phase could create confusion or unrealistic expectations about the project scope and timeline. It could also undermine the credibility and authority of the project manager and the solution architect, who are responsible for managing the project and ensuring the quality of the solution. Therefore, optionA is not advisable.