To exclude a specific subset of resources from being scheduled by the optimization engine, you use a Hard Constraint Work Rule.

Option D is correct.TheMatch BooleanWork Rule is designed to filter resources based on a checkbox (Boolean) field.

You would create a custom checkbox on the Service Resource object (e.g., Is_Contractor__c).

You configure the Match Boolean rule in the Scheduling Policy to enforce that Is_Contractor__c must be False.

When optimization runs, any resource where Is_Contractor__c = True fails the rule and is completely ignored/excluded from the schedule calculation.

Option A (Count Rule) limits volume, it doesn't exclude.

Options B and C (Match Field/Extended Match) match properties between theJoband theResource(e.g., Skill or Location matching), which is not the same as a blanket exclusion of a resource type.

This scenario requires managing availability for resources who work across multiple territories (Primary and Secondary memberships) specifically for "off-hours" emergencies.

Option D is correctbecause Shifts in Salesforce Field Service allow you to define ad-hoc availability outside of standard Operating Hours. Crucially, if you create a Shiftwithout specifying a Service Territory, that availability applies to the resource'sPrimary Territoryby default. However, because the resource also holdsSecondary Territory Membershipsfor the other business units, the scheduling engine (specifically the "Match Territory" Work Rule) recognizes this availability as valid for those territories as well, provided the shift falls within the membership dates.

Setting the Time Slot Type to'Designated'(or 'Extended') is the standard way to mark time for specific work types (like Emergencies) using Work Rules that filter on those time slot types.

Option B is incorrect because creating a separate shift foreveryterritory is administrative overhead and unnecessary when a single non-territory-specific shift can cover the resource's availability across their memberships.

Option A is factually incorrect; resources can have multiple territory memberships.

This is a classic "Double-Booking" vs. "Complex Work" scenario.

Option B is correct.To book two distinct people for the same work at the same time, you createtwo Service Appointments. You link them using aComplex Workdependency of typeSame Start4. This tells the optimization engine: "Find a time where Resource A (Appointment 1) and Resource B (Appointment 2) are BOTH free, and book them simultaneously."

Option Ais incorrect because a single Service Appointment can typically only have oneactiveAssigned Resource for scheduling purposes in the standard optimization model (unless using Crew Management, but Crews are forstaticteams, not ad-hoc pairs).

Option Dis incorrect because the requirement states they need to be assigned to "individual jobs later that day"5.Service Crewsare designed for resources who stay together all day. Breaking a crew apart for half a day is administratively difficult.

Option Cis a hack (Resource Absence) that blocks the second tech's time but doesn't link them to the actual job details properly.

To filter resources based on strict criteria (like security clearance), you use Work Rules (Hard Constraints).

Option B is correct (Match Boolean):This is a simple, effective method for binary requirements. You place a checkbox on the Service Appointment (e.g., "Requires Security Badge") and a corresponding checkbox on the Service Resource (e.g., "Has Security Badge"). TheMatch BooleanWork Rule enforces that if the Appointment is checked, the Resourcemustalso be checked.

Option E is correct (Extended Match):If the requirement is more complex (e.g., matching a specifictypeorlevelof badge), theExtended MatchWork Rule is best. It allows you to match a field on the Service Appointment (or Work Order) to a related list or field on the Service Resource. For example, matching the "Badge Type" required by the Government Account to the "Badge Type" held by the Resource.

Note: While Skills (Option C) are also commonly used for this, the question specifically points toward Work Rule configurations (Boolean/Extended) often used for strict compliance attributes.

This question addresses the limits of Skills (Work Rules) vs. Extended Match (Custom Criteria).

Option B is correct.This offers the most efficient hybrid approach9.

Skills:Use standard Skills for the "Service Type" (e.g., "Repair," "Install"). This is simple and low-volume.

Extended Match:Use theExtended Match Work Ruleto handle the "Product" matching. Instead of creating thousands of skills (e.g., "Repair-ModelX," "Repair-ModelY"), you create a custom object or field logic that matches theAsset's Productto a list ofProducts Supportedon the Resource's record. Extended Match is designed exactly for this "Pattern Matching" without polluting the Skills table.

Option Cis incorrect because creating a unique skill for everycombination(100+ per resource) leads to "Skill Explosion." This bloats the data model and degrades optimization performance10.

The goal is to fit high-priority work into a schedule already filled with low-priority work.

Option B is correct.The system must know that the Repair jobs are more important than the Maintenance jobs. This is handled by theScheduling Priorityfield (used in the optimization logic to decide which job to drop if there is a conflict) or the Priority field mapped to Service Objectives.

Option C is correct.Global Optimizationis the best tool here. It will look at the entire week, see the high-priority unscheduled jobs, and the low-priority scheduled jobs. It will then un-schedule or move the maintenance jobs to make room for the urgent repairs.

Option D is correct.For Optimization to work, the existing maintenance appointments mustnot be Pinned. If they are pinned, the optimizer treats them as immovable rock, and it won't be able to free up the time needed for the repairs.

Option A (Manual assignment) is inefficient and risky (could double-book). Option E (Resource Schedule Optimization) optimizes one person at a time; Global Optimization is better suited for balancing the load across the whole territory.

This scenario involves two distinct types of work (Installation vs. Training) with different durations and likely different skill requirements, but they are part of the same customer order.

Option C is correct.

Data Model:UsingWork Order Line Items (WOLIs)is the best practice here. You create one WOLI for the "Installation" (linked to a Work Type that allows Multi-Day) and a separate WOLI for "Training" (linked to a different Work Type). This allows you to track the status and skills for each part separately.

Dependency:UsingComplex Work(specifically a "Start After Finish" dependency) ensures the Training appointment cannot be scheduled until the Installation is complete.

Option A puts both Appointments on thesameWork Order parent. While possible, it makes it harder to report on "Training" vs "Install" costs separately and limits the ability to use different Work Types for each appointment automatically.

Option B relies on manual updates or custom automation ("When scheduled, update..."), whereas Complex Work (Option C) handles the logic natively during optimization.