Pegasystems PEGACPLSA23V1 Practice Test Questions Answers

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

Pega’s application layering, as taught in Pega Academy’sApplication Design Missionand thePega Certified Lead System Architect Study Guide, promotes a modular, reusable architecture using framework and implementation applications. This structure is ideal for organizations with multiple divisions requiring shared and specialized functionality.

Option A (Correct): Creating an enterprise application as a framework defines reusable components (e.g., common processes, data models) for all divisions. Division and unit applications are built as implementation applications on top, inheriting and specializing the framework. This promotes reuse and modularity, as documented in theApplication Layeringsection of Pega Community.

Option B (Incorrect): An enterprise application as an implementation structure lacks the reusable framework layer, leading to duplicated effort across divisions. Framework applications are needed for shared components, per theFramework Designmodule.

Option C (Incorrect): Combining framework and implementation structures in the enterprise application is redundant and violates Pega’s layering principles. The enterprise layer should be a framework, with implementations below it, as noted in theApplication Architectureguidelines.

Option D (Incorrect): Separate implementation applications communicating via DX APIs are siloed and reduce reuse. A framework-implementation structure is more efficient for shared processes, per theModular Designmodule.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

Relevant records in Pega’s App Studio, as described in Pega Academy’sApplication Design Missionand thePega Certified Lead System Architect Study Guide, simplify low-code development by guiding citizen developers to appropriate rules and enabling reuse, enhancing productivity and efficiency.

Option A (Incorrect): Relevant records do not control run-time rule availability or directly impact rule performance. They are a design-time feature for guiding developers, per theApp Studio Featuresmodule.

Option B (Correct): Relevant records regulate design-time prompting and filtering in App Studio, reducing the time spent searching for unrelated records by presenting contextually appropriate options. This is a key benefit for citizen developers, as documented in theRelevant Recordssection of Pega Community.

Option C (Correct): Promoting rules from a built-on application via relevant records enables reuse in other classes, improving resource management and modularity. This supports low-code reuse, per theRule Promotionguidelines.

Option D (Incorrect): Promoting data or case instances is not a function of relevant records. Relevant records focus on rule reuse, not instance management, as noted in theApp Studio Configurationmodule.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

Microjourneys are a core concept in Pega Express, as taught in Pega Academy’sApplication Design Missionand thePega Certified Lead System Architect Study Guide.They represent focused, outcome-driven segments of a customer journey, designed to deliver value quickly and align with business objectives.

Option A (Correct): Microjourneys are segments of the customer journey that accomplish specific business outcomes, such as completing a loan application or resolving a complaint. This aligns with Pega Express’s focus on breaking down complex journeys into manageable parts, as outlined in theMicrojourney Designmodule.

Option B (Correct): Microjourneys represent case life cycles or units of work that deliver significant outcomes for customers and users, such as approving a claim or onboarding a client. This is a key principle of Pega’s case-centric design, per theApplication Designmodule.

Option C (Incorrect): Microjourneys are not about creating reusable assets for citizen developers. While reusable assets may support Microjourneys, their primary purpose is delivering business outcomes, not enabling improvisation, as clarified in thePega Expressguidelines.

Option D (Incorrect): Microjourneys are not data objects; they are process-driven case life cycles, not data manipulation constructs. Data objects support Microjourneys but are distinct, per theData Modelingmodule.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

Pega’s work delegation capabilities, as outlined in Pega Academy’sLead System Architect Missionand thePega Certified Lead System Architect Study Guide, provide built-in routing utilities to assign tasks based on operator attributes like skills and availability. The Work-.ToSkilledGroup utility is designed for intelligent assignment in scenarios like medical appointments.

Option A (Incorrect): Developing a custom routing utility is unnecessary and increases development effort. Pega’s built-in routing options, like ToSkilledGroup, are optimized for this purpose, per theWork Delegationmodule.

Option B (Incorrect): The Work-.ToLeveledGroup routing utility assigns work based on work group levels, not specific skills or availability, making it unsuitable for matching medical issues to specialists, as noted in theRouting Utilitiesguidelines.

Option C (Incorrect): Decision table-based routing is feasible but less dynamic than skill-based routing. It requires manual maintenance of the table and does not natively consider availability, per theDecision Table Routingmodule.

Option D (Correct): Defining medical professionals as operators with department, skillset, and availability, and using Work-.ToSkilledGroup routing, ensures intelligent assignment based on medical issue and availability. This is Pega’s recommended approach for skill-based routing, as documented in theRouting Configurationsection of Pega Community.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

The divide-and-conquer design pattern in Pega, as taught in Pega Academy’sApplication Design Missionand thePega Certified Lead System Architect Study Guide, involves breaking complex problems into smaller, manageable units to facilitate parallel development and simplify solutions.

Option A (Incorrect): While divide-and-conquer supports project management, it is not specifically tied to Agile Workbench, which is a tool for managing Agile processes, not a direct benefit of the pattern, per theAgile Developmentmodule.

Option B (Correct): The divide-and-conquer approach enables parallel development by allowing teams to focus on specific units of work, improving resource utilization and accelerating project completion. This is a key benefit, as documented in theApplication Design Patternssection of Pega Community.

Option C (Correct): Breaking complex problems into smaller, independently solvable units simplifies development and is an effective strategy for most business use cases. This aligns with Pega’s design philosophy, per theDivide-and-Conquer Patternmodule.

Option D (Incorrect): While parallel development is a benefit, the pattern does not directly reduce bug escalations or enable quick fixes. These outcomes depend on testing and governance, not the pattern itself, as noted in theQuality Assuranceguidelines.