AP-209 Questions and Answers

This scenario describes a structured process with validation (Checklist + Data + Images).

Option A is correct.Work Plansare the standard, modern feature for checklists in Salesforce Field Service. A Work Plan consists of "Work Steps." These steps can be linked to aFlow, which provides a user-friendly wizard to capture specific data inputs and upload images in a structured way.

Option Bis the legacy method. Adding fields directly to the Service Appointment creates clutter and doesn't offer a step-by-step "Checklist" experience.

Option Cis a security risk (too much access) and provides no process guidance.

Option D(Deep Linking) is used to jumpoutof the app to another app, which is not needed here since SFS can handle flows natively.

Service Territory design heavily impacts the performance of the Gantt and Optimization engine.

Option C is correct:Historically, Salesforce recommended keeping Service Territories to around50 Resourcesto ensure the Gantt loads quickly and optimization runs efficiently. (While limits have increased, this remains a safe "rule of thumb" for design).

Option D is correct:Territories are almost alwaysGeographic. This drives the travel time calculations, which are central to the Field Service value proposition.

Option B is correct:This refers to theAppointment Bookingsearch space. If a territory is too massive, the engine has to score thousands of candidates, which is slow. Designing territories/policies so that the engine evaluates a focused set (e.g., ~20 qualified candidates) ensures sub-second response times for booking slots.

Option A (Skill assignments) is about Resources, not Territory structure.

This is the standard troubleshooting procedure for "Why wasn't this scheduled?".

Option A is correct.If there is white space, but the optimizer didn't use it, there is likely aRule Violation(Hard Constraint) preventing it (e.g., The resource is missing a Skill, the Territory doesn't match, or the Travel Time is too long). Manually dragging the appointment to that specific spot on the Gantt triggers the rule validation logic, and the console will pop up a "Rule Violation" message telling you exactlywhichrule failed (e.g., "Match Skills Rule Violation").

Option Bhelps findvalidslots, but it doesn't explain why thecurrentwhite space is invalid.

Option Caddresses scoring (Objectives), not hard constraints (Rules). If there was space, the objectives would just give it a low score, not prevent scheduling entirely (unless the score was 0, but Rule Violations are the more common culprit for unscheduled work).

This question tests your understanding of Salesforce Field Service License types (Dispatcher, Technician, Contractor).

1 Dispatcher:Although not explicitly stated as a user in the text, you always need at least one dispatcher license to manage the schedule. (Typically implied in licensing questions unless "0" is an option).

2 Technicians:Territory A has "2 internal resources"1. Internal mobile workers require the standardField Service Mobile(Technician) license.

2 Contractors (Capacity-Based):The question states "2 contractors set as capacity-based resources: ABC and XYZ."2These are the "Bucket" accounts. In Salesforce, even capacity-based container users often consume a license (typically aContractororCommunity Pluslogin) to access the portal/community where they might view their aggregate schedule.

7 Contractors (Individuals):The question specifies "ABC... has 3 individual resources and XYZ... has 4 individual resources"3. Even if theschedulingis done at the capacity (bucket) level, if these 7 people need to log in to the app or community to close jobs, they each need a license.

Result: 1 Dispatcher + 2 Technicians (Internal) + 2 Contractors (The Managers/Buckets) + 7 Contractors (The Workers) = Option D.

(Note: Licensing models can be complex. In some strictly capacity-based models, you might not license the 7 individuals if they never log in, but Option D is the most complete answer reflecting a standard model where all participants need system access).

This requires a balance of data accuracy (tracking the asset) and schedule accuracy (updating the duration).

Option D is correctbecause it usesField Service Mobile Flows, which is the best practice for guiding technicians through complex processes.

Data:Creating aWork Order Line Item (WOLI)is the correct data model to track work done on a specific (secondary) Asset under the main Work Order.

Schedule:The flow can update the current Service Appointment's Duration and Scheduled End to reflect the reality that the tech will be there longer.

Automation:Triggering a "Scheduling Recipe" (now typically handled via Flows/Optimization services) ensures that if the appointment runs long, subsequent appointments for the day are automatically shifted (Reshuffled) to prevent overlapping/late arrivals.

Options A and C fail to update the schedule duration, meaning the tech will likely be late to their next job without the dispatcher knowing. Option B creates a second appointment, which is administratively heavy for "just looking at" another asset during the same visit.

To stop a resource from receiving work, you must mark them as inactive and ensure the scheduling engine respects that status.

Option C is correct:Deactivating the Service Resource(unchecking the "Active" checkbox on the record) is the standard way to "fire" or terminate a resource. It preserves history but flags them as no longer working7.

Option A is correct:You must ensure yourScheduling Policyincludes theActive ResourcesWork Rule8. This rule explicitly tells the optimization engine: "Do not assign appointments to any resource where Active = False." Without this rule, the engine might still technically assign work to an inactive record if no other constraints block it.

Option B(Delete) is bad practice (data loss).

Option D(Excluded Resources) is for specificjob-by-jobexclusions (e.g., "Don't send Bob to this specific customer"), not for global termination.

Asset replacement and history in Salesforce are tracked using the Asset Relationship object.

Options A and B are correct.TheAsset Relationshipobject links two assets together (e.g., Old Asset -> New Asset) with a relationship type like "Replacement" or "Upgrade." On the Asset page layout, this related list (often labeled "Asset Relationships" or "Related Assets") allows you to see the history in both directions:

Forward:See the new asset that replacedthisasset (Option A).

Backward:See the old asset thatthisasset replaced (Option B).

Options C and D are incorrect. "Primary Assets" is typically a concept associated with Service Contracts (covering the main asset) or Entitlements, not the history of physical swaps/upgrades between asset records.

(Note: The provided PDF source likely contains an error marking D as correct. "Primary Assets" is not the standard location for replacement history.)

Mapping resources to specific Zip Codes (which are not necessarily Service Territories) is a common high-volume requirement.

Option A is correct.Creating a standard Service Territory foreverypostal code (Option D) creates a hierarchy that is too deep and hurts performance.

Instead, modeling "Zip Code Coverage" as aCustom Object(or data table) allows for a cleaner data model. You then use theExtended Match Work Rule. This rule is highly flexible; it can verify that the Zip Code on the Service Appointment matches a record in the Zip Codes Covered related list on the Service Resource. This supports optimization without bloating the Territory or Skill tables.

Option B (Match Fields)only works for 1-to-1 matching (e.g., The Resource hasonezip field). It cannot easily handle a resource covering 50 different zip codes unless you use the custom object approach described in A.