Summary:
Making a compelling business case for accessibility requires demonstrating its strategic value and feasibility, not just its ethical importance. The most effective approach is to frame it as a standard part of product prioritization and planning. This involves analyzing accessibility requirements with the same objective criteria used for any other feature to show they are a manageable and high-impact investment.

Correct Option:

C. Plot accessibility standards against impact and difficulty:
This is the most persuasive and actionable strategy. Using a standard prioritization framework like an Impact/Difficulty (or Value/Effort) matrix allows the designer to:

Quantify Impact: Show how accessibility expands market reach, improves SEO, enhances the experience for all users, and mitigates legal risk.

Assess Difficulty: Break down accessibility into specific, actionable tasks (e.g., adding alt text, ensuring keyboard navigation) and plot them to identify "quick wins" (high impact, low difficulty) and plan for more complex items. This demystifies the work and integrates it into the existing development workflow.

Incorrect Option:

A. Evaluate competitors' accessibility standards:
While this can provide useful context, it is a reactive and external-focused argument. It doesn't build a positive, intrinsic case for why Cloud Kicks should lead on this issue. A competitor's poor accessibility does not automatically justify the investment.

B. Focus rationale on how refactoring later is more expensive:
This is a valid supporting point (the "cost of retrofitting" is a well-known concept), but it is a negative, fear-based argument. A strong business case should be built on positive opportunities (like reaching new audiences) supported by a clear, feasible plan, which is what option C provides.

Reference:
Salesforce Trailhead, "Accessibility Basics": This module makes the business case for accessibility, highlighting the expanded market reach and improved user experience for everyone. It advocates for building accessibility in from the start, and using a structured approach to prioritize and implement standards aligns with this proactive, integrated methodology.

Summary:
Co-creation involves directly involving users in the design process to generate ideas and solutions. When customers help create a loyalty program, they develop a sense of ownership and emotional investment in the final product. This direct involvement makes them more likely to understand its value, participate actively, and remain engaged once it launches, as they see their own ideas and feedback reflected in it.

Correct Option:

B. Increased adoption of the loyalty program:
This is the most direct and well-documented outcome of co-creation. Customers who help design a solution are far more likely to adopt and champion it. Their participation builds a sense of ownership and ensures the program is tailored to their actual desires and behaviors, removing barriers to entry and increasing its perceived value from day one.

Incorrect Option:

A. Increased sales of custom footwear:
While this could be a potential long-term indirect result of a successful loyalty program, it is not a direct outcome of the co-creation workshop itself. The workshop is focused on designing the program, not on directly driving sales of an existing product.

C. Increased speed of the design process:
Co-creation can often slow down the initial design phase because it involves more people and consensus-building. Its primary value is not speed but the quality, relevance, and eventual adoption of the solution. It can, however, increase speed later by reducing the need for major revisions after launch.

Reference:
Salesforce Trailhead, "Gain a Shared Understanding": This module discusses collaborative techniques like co-creation. It emphasizes that involving users in the design process leads to solutions that are better suited to their needs, which in turn drives higher engagement and adoption rates—the most direct and valuable outcome of this method.

Summary:
When a critique session yields primarily subjective opinions, the root cause is typically a lack of structure and clear criteria for evaluation. Without established guidelines, participants default to personal preference. Assuming good intent, the facilitator has not provided the necessary framework to channel feedback toward the objective goals of the work, such as how well the concept meets user needs or business objectives.

Correct Option:

C. The designer has not properly defined the guidelines for the critique session:
This is the most common reason. Effective critique requires a clear brief that outlines the goals, target user, and specific questions for feedback. Without this, participants lack a shared context and objective basis for their comments. The facilitator's role is to set these guidelines at the start, for example, by saying, "Today, we're evaluating this concept against our goal of increasing repeat purchases. Please frame your feedback around that objective."

Incorrect Option:

A. The critique does not have the right participants in the room; there are too many dominant personalities:
While dominant personalities can be a challenge, a skilled facilitator with proper guidelines (like a round-robin format) can manage this. The core issue is not who is in the room, but how the session is structured. Good guidelines mitigate the influence of dominant voices.

B. The non-designers do not have the skills needed to give effective critique on design work:
This is an incorrect and counterproductive assumption. Non-designers provide invaluable perspectives on business logic, technical feasibility, and user needs. The problem is not a lack of skill but a lack of direction. When given clear guidelines (e.g., "Does this feel aligned with our brand?" or "Is this technically feasible?"), anyone can give effective, objective-focused feedback.

Reference:
Salesforce Trailhead, "Collaborate for Better Customer Experiences": This module emphasizes the importance of structured collaboration. It teaches that setting clear objectives and frameworks for feedback sessions is essential for productive outcomes. Without this structure, even well-intentioned participants will provide unhelpful, subjective opinions.

Summary:
The new virtual try-on tool is a strategic capability that will be rolled out across multiple, distinct product lines, brands, and regions over time. A single view is needed to show how this overarching initiative will be phased and delivered across the entire portfolio of the business, coordinating the efforts of multiple teams and aligning various stakeholders on the big-picture plan.

Correct Option:

A. Portfolio roadmap:
This is the correct type of roadmap. A portfolio roadmap provides a high-level, strategic view of multiple initiatives, products, or business units on a single timeline. It is designed to show how major capabilities (like the virtual try-on tool) will be deployed across different areas of the business, helping executives and cross-functional leaders understand dependencies, resource allocation, and the overall strategic sequence.

Incorrect Option:

B. Strategy roadmap:
This term is less standard but generally refers to a very high-level document outlining key strategic goals and themes over multiple years. It is less about specific product releases and more about communicating the "why" behind the work. It lacks the granularity needed to track the release of a specific tool across multiple product lines.

C. Product roadmap:
A product roadmap typically details the planned features, enhancements, and iterations for a single product or platform. Since the virtual try-on tool applies to multiple product lines and brands, a single product roadmap would be too narrow and would not provide the consolidated, cross-portfolio view that is required.

Reference:
Salesforce Trailhead, "Create a Roadmap": This module discusses different types of roadmaps for different audiences. For communicating plans that span multiple products and initiatives to executive leadership, a portfolio roadmap is the appropriate tool to show how strategic themes and capabilities will be delivered across the business.

Summary:
The purpose of a facilitated workshop is to harness diverse perspectives to find the best path forward. Strong, differing opinions are a sign of engaged stakeholders, not a failure. The facilitator's role is to guide the group through this conflict constructively and transparently to build a shared understanding and a consensus-based decision that everyone can support, even if it wasn't their initial preference.

Correct Option:

C. Work through the conflict in the workshop to reach a shared perspective:
This is the correct approach for a skilled facilitator. By using techniques like listing assumptions, mapping arguments to objective criteria (like value vs. effort), or using a "disagree and commit" framework, the designer can help the group understand the root of their disagreement. Resolving it openly builds trust, ensures all viewpoints are considered, and creates a stronger, more resilient decision with collective ownership.

Incorrect Option:

A. Pause the conversation and work through the conflict in a private setting:
This avoids the problem and undermines the workshop's collaborative purpose. It creates an "us vs. them" dynamic, fosters speculation, and erodes trust because the resolution happens behind closed doors without transparency. The group does not learn how to navigate conflict together.

B. Take a vote among people in the room and pursue the winning opinion:
While democratic, a simple vote is often a superficial way to resolve deep strategic disagreements. It creates winners and losers, can silence minority but valuable perspectives, and does not build the shared understanding necessary for committed execution. The "losing" side may remain unconvinced and disengaged.

Reference:
Salesforce Trailhead, "Facilitate an Inclusive and Engaging Virtual Meeting": This module emphasizes the facilitator's role in managing group dynamics. It teaches that conflict should be addressed openly and constructively, using facilitation techniques to guide the group to a consensus, which is essential for achieving true alignment and a successful outcome.