問題文
The conglomerate's insurance arm and logistics arm both track a concept called Partner, but with different fields and different lifecycles. From the design point of view, what does this observation tell the architect about the org strategy?
選択肢
- That the shared org should hold two custom objects with different names, which keeps the two meanings apart and therefore removes the argument for splitting the orgs while still allowing cross-arm reporting on both objects together.
- That the two arms should agree on a common definition of Partner before any decision about the org strategy is taken, because a single shared definition is always achievable when both arms report to the same executive and it removes the need to consider splitting the implementation at all.
- That the two arms must be split, and the decision can be taken on this observation alone.
- That a shared org would force one object to serve two meanings, which pushes complexity into record types, page layouts, and sharing.