Explanation

The CIO wants to leverage internal talent and build long-term capability instead of fully outsourcing the implementation. A successful internal Center of Excellence (CoE) ensures knowledge retention, ongoing ownership, and self-sufficiency after go-live. The architect must highlight realistic benefits while avoiding overstatements on cost and autonomy that often lead to failure in large multi-cloud projects.

✅ Correct Option C: Knowledge of the solution will stay within the organization.
This is the primary strategic advantage of an internal CoE. Design decisions, custom code, integrations, and business logic remain with UC’s team, reducing dependency on external partners for future enhancements, support, and new phases. It builds true institutional expertise across Sales Cloud, Service Cloud, etc.

✅ Correct Option A: All development decisions will be made by internal resources.
A defining characteristic of a strong internal CoE. While external partners may still provide architects or specialized skills for short periods, the final say on architecture, prioritization, and technical choices rests with UC’s internal team — ensuring alignment with long-term vision and preventing vendor lock-in.

❌ Incorrect Option B: Documentation around the solution will not be a concern.
Completely false and dangerous. Large multi-cloud implementations require even more rigorous documentation (architecture diagrams, data models, decision logs, release notes) when using an internal CoE. Without it, knowledge silos form inside the company, making onboarding, audits, and handovers extremely difficult.

❌ Incorrect Option D: It will be much more cost effective to create a CoE.
Not guaranteed and often misleading. Internal CoEs can be cost-effective long-term, but the initial build phase for complex multi-cloud projects frequently costs the same or more than a proven SI due to ramp-up time, learning curves, and potential rework. Cost savings typically appear in years 2–5, not during the first implementation.

Summary
Recommend building an internal CoE because it keeps deep solution knowledge in-house (C) and gives UC full control over development decisions (A). These are the real, sustainable benefits. Do not promise lower upfront cost or reduced documentation needs — both can jeopardize success.

Reference:
Salesforce Center of Excellence Best Practices
Trailhead – Build Your Salesforce Center of Excellence
Partner vs Internal Implementation Considerations

Explanation

The core requirement is to expose existing, complex, special pricing logic and streamline reordering to customers via a self-service portal quickly. The best practice is to leverage the native CPQ B2B Commerce Connector to use CPQ as the single source of truth for all product rules and special pricing, ensuring consistency across channels and faster implementation.

✔️ Correct Option: B. Implement B2B Commerce and use the CPQB2B Commerce Connector to integrate to CPQ. Keep CPQ as the Product and Pricing master.
This approach is the best practice for integrating B2B Commerce with an existing CPQ implementation. CPQ is the definitive master for complex pricing rules, discounting, and product configuration, which is essential for preserving the customer's special pricing visibility. The native connector reduces development time, meeting the "short timeframe" requirement, and ensures consistent pricing logic across both sales channels.

❌ Incorrect Option: A. Implement B2B Commerce and use the CPQ B2B Commerce Connector to integrate to CPQ. Set B2B Commerce as the Product and Pricing master.
This is a poor design choice. Setting B2B Commerce as the pricing master would require rebuilding all existing special pricing and complex product rules from CPQ into the B2B Commerce system. This adds significant complexity, increases implementation time, and creates a risk of pricing inconsistencies between the traditional and self-service channels.

❌ Incorrect Option: C. Implement B2B Commerce and use the CPQ B2B Commerce Connector to integrate to CPQ. Allow bidirectional updates to Products and Pricing.
Allowing bidirectional updates creates a significant risk of data inconsistency and circular dependencies. In a complex pricing environment like this, CPQ must remain the single source of truth for all pricing logic. Bidirectional syncing would introduce unnecessary architectural complexity and make it difficult to maintain and troubleshoot special pricing issues.

❌ Incorrect Option: D. Implement B2B Commerce and build a custom integration to CPQ. Keep CPQ as the Product and Pricing master.
While keeping CPQ as the master is correct, building a custom integration would drastically increase the implementation timeline and cost, violating the requirement for a short timeframe. The native CPQ B2B Commerce Connector is specifically designed for this integration scenario, making it the recommended best practice for speed and maintenance.

Summary
The recommended design is to implement B2B Commerce for the customer-facing experience and utilize the native CPQ B2B Commerce Connector. The key best practice is to retain CPQ as the master for all complex product and pricing data. This approach is the fastest and ensures customers' special pricing and reordering logic remain accurate across both the existing sales channel and the new self-service portal.

Reference
B2B Commerce for CPQ Integration (Official Documentation)
Salesforce CPQ as the Single Source of Truth

Explanation:

UC’s requirement is to track monthly invoicing and payment status and compare customer order volume against the contractual schedule. Since orders live in the ERP, Salesforce must reflect both order activity and invoice/payment status. The Salesforce components must therefore support recurring revenue tracking and integrate reliably with ERP data. A combination of scheduling capability and ERP integration meets this need.

✅ Correct Options

B. Product and Revenue Schedules from Sales Cloud
Revenue Schedules allow UC to break contract revenue into monthly segments that match the customer’s volume-based schedule. This enables employees to compare expected monthly contract values with the actual invoiced or ordered amounts coming from the ERP. It provides a timeline-based view that surfaces gaps early and supports accurate contract performance tracking in Salesforce.

D. Orders and Order Products from Sales Cloud and a MuleSoft integration with the ERP
Since customer orders originate in the ERP, integrating Orders and Order Products into Salesforce ensures UC has real-time or periodic visibility of order activity. MuleSoft offers reliable middleware for syncing ERP order data into Salesforce. This combination enables UC to compare monthly expected contract revenue with actual customer orders and identify shortfalls promptly.

❌ Incorrect Options

A. Opportunities and Opportunity Products from Sales Cloud
Opportunities represent forecasted revenue, not executed customer orders or invoice/payment activity. UC needs to monitor real monthly performance against contract obligations, which requires actual order and invoice data—not sales forecasts. Therefore, Opportunities cannot satisfy the requirement for tracking order shortfalls or payment-related metrics.

C. Invoicing payment status sync between Salesforce Billing and ERP
Salesforce Billing only applies if UC is using the Salesforce Revenue Cloud Billing platform. UC’s orders and invoices live in the ERP, not Salesforce Billing. Implementing Billing just for payment status sync is unnecessary complexity. Syncing invoice/payment information can be achieved without Salesforce Billing, and UC’s real need is broader order and schedule visibility.

Summary:
UC needs to compare contractual monthly targets against real order volumes and track payment status. Revenue Schedules model the monthly contract expectations, while integrating Orders and Order Products from ERP into Salesforce provides actual order data. Opportunities and Salesforce Billing do not fit the requirement since UC relies on ERP as its financial system.

Reference:
Salesforce Product & Revenue Schedules
Salesforce Orders & Order Management

Explanation

Universal Containers is overwhelmed with low-intent abandoned-cart leads and wants to recover revenue automatically while freeing Sales reps to focus only on genuine upsell/cross-sell opportunities. The right approach eliminates unnecessary lead creation, shifts recovery to Marketing Cloud automation, and sends personalized discount emails — all without manual intervention.

✅ Correct Option B: Send automated emails in Sales Cloud with discounted offers to customers who abandoned their cart.
Automated recovery emails with tailored discounts and recommended products consistently deliver the highest cart recovery rates. When powered by Marketing Cloud Connect, these messages are sent instantly or in timed sequences, driving completed purchases without requiring any rep to lift a finger.

✅ Correct Option C: Set up lead nurturing with Marketing Cloud and automate emails through journeys.
Marketing Cloud journeys triggered by B2B Commerce abandoned-cart events enable sophisticated, multi-touch recovery sequences with dynamic content, urgency triggers, and personalized product recommendations — far superior to one-off emails and the most effective way to convert abandoned carts automatically.

✅ Correct Option D: Stop creating leads in Sales Cloud for abandoned carts.
This is the critical hygiene step. Auto-creating a lead for every abandoned cart is the direct cause of the backlog and callback delays. Disabling this integration immediately stops thousands of low-quality leads from polluting queues and allows Sales to focus only on qualified, high-potential opportunities.

❌ Incorrect Option A: Create an opportunity when a customer clicks a cross-sell or upsell email link.
This approach is far too aggressive and bypasses the natural buying journey. Clicking an email link indicates mild interest, not strong buying intent. Jumping straight to an Opportunity creates premature pipeline clutter, inflates forecasting errors, and forces reps to chase leads that should resolve digitally through the cart or a personalized landing page.

❌ Incorrect Option E: Put all leads from the abandoned carts in a queue.
Simply moving the problem from one place to another does nothing to reduce workload or recover revenue. Reps still face an endless queue of mostly low-intent leads, manual review is still required, and the underlying issue — treating every abandoned cart as a sales-ready lead — remains completely unaddressed.

Summary
Recommend B, C, and D: send automated recovery emails with discounts, build intelligent Marketing Cloud journeys for multi-step nurturing, and immediately stop creating abandoned-cart leads. This combination maximizes recovered revenue through automation while dramatically reducing Sales workload and ensuring reps only engage when real upsell potential exists.

Reference:
B2B Commerce Abandoned Cart Overview
Marketing Cloud Connect – Abandoned Cart Journeys
Journeys and Messages

Explanation

The core decision revolves around the partners' sales complexity and their relationship with UC. Asking about selling model (co-sell vs. sell-to) defines the necessary data exposure and quoting process, while asking about configuration complexity determines if the full power of CPQ is strictly required over a simpler B2B Commerce approach.

✔️ Correct Option: B. Does the direct Sales team co-sell with partners or sell to partners in this new channel model?
This is a critical question for solution design as it defines the channel sales model. If UC sells to partners (Partner as Customer), B2B Commerce may suffice. If UC co-sells with partners to end customers, CPQ via Experience Cloud is needed to allow partners to generate end-customer quotes using UC's complex product and pricing rules.

✔️ Correct Option: C. Do partners need to do complex configurations or create their special pricing?
The need for complex configurations (bundles, constraints, validation) or dynamic special pricing rules is the primary driver for selecting CPQ. If these requirements exist, CPQ is necessary to ensure accuracy in partner quotes. If the partner's needs are simple, transactional purchases, the existing B2B Commerce platform could be extended to serve them more easily.

❌ Incorrect Option: A. Will partners be using CPQ to sell to our customers that are utilizing our B2B Commerce tool today?
This question is too specific and narrow. The Solution Architect should first determine if CPQ is necessary and how the channel model works (Options B and C). Whether the end customers also use B2B Commerce is a downstream detail, not a primary question for evaluating the initial partner engagement architecture.

❌ Incorrect Option: D. What do we need to invest in order to build the channel and where does that investment come from?
This is a business and financial question, not a technical or architectural design question. While investment is important, a Solution Architect's primary role is to evaluate functional fit and technical architecture (e.g., using CPQ vs. B2B Commerce), not to determine the source or amount of funding for the project.

Summary
The Solution Architect must determine the correct sales process and functional requirements for the new partner channel. The two most relevant questions determine: 1) The required selling relationship (co-sell vs. sell-to) to scope the platform's user and data needs, and 2) The complexity of configuration and pricing to confirm the absolute need for the robust features of Revenue Cloud's CPQ product.

Reference
Salesforce Partner Relationship Management (PRM) with Experience Cloud
Configure Price Quote (CPQ)