Cyber Monday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Microsoft Exam MB-260 Topic 1 Question 21 Discussion

Actual exam question for Microsoft's MB-260 exam
Question #: 21
Topic #: 1
[All MB-260 Questions]

Note: This question is part of a series of questions that present the same scenario. Each question in the series contains a unique solution that might meet the stated goals Some question sets might have more than one correct solution, while others might not have a correct solution.

After you answer a question in this section, you will NOT be able to return to it. As a result, these questions will not appear in the review screen.

You are implementing Microsoft Dynamics 365 Customer Insights as your company's Customer Data Platform.

The initial dataset tables contain contacts from Dynamics 365 Sales. eCommerce customers, and service management platform incidents.

In your first unification run, you set Dynamics 365 as the primary table but only see eCommerce profiles that were able to be matched with Dynamics 365 contacts.

You need to ensure that unmatched eCommerce customers are also added as a profile in Dynamics 365 Customer Insights.

Solution: Adjust the first condition in the matching rule with the lowest precision.

Does this meet the goal?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

Contribute your Thoughts:

Belen
8 months ago
Hmm, I don't know. I'm with Barbra and Wilson on this one. Lowering the precision just feels like we're compromising the integrity of the data. And you know how picky the auditors are going to be about this. I think we need to try harder to find a better solution.
upvoted 0 times
Ashley
7 months ago
We should prioritize finding a better solution for this issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laurena
8 months ago
Changing the matching rule might have consequences we haven't considered.
upvoted 0 times
...
Valda
8 months ago
I think we should reconsider our approach here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jess
8 months ago
Let's discuss this further with the team before making any changes.
upvoted 0 times
...
Staci
8 months ago
Maybe we should explore other options before making a decision.
upvoted 0 times
...
Martina
8 months ago
I agree, we need to ensure the data integrity is maintained.
upvoted 0 times
...
Johnathon
8 months ago
Lowering precision might not be the best solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Yolande
8 months ago
I don't know, you guys. Sometimes you just have to do what works, you know? If lowering the precision is the only way to get those unmatched eCommerce cusWilsoners in there, then I say go for it. It might not be the perfect solution, but at least it gets the job done.
upvoted 0 times
...
Wilson
8 months ago
Yeah, I agree with Barbra. Lowering the precision of the matching rule feels like a bit of a hack. Aren't we supposed to be creating a robust and accurate Cuser Data Platform? I think we need to dig deeper and find a more elegant solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Barbra
8 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure about this solution. Adjusting the matching rule with the lowest precision doesn't seem like the right approach to me. Shouldn't we be trying to improve the matching process to ensure all the eCommerce customers are included, rather than just lowering the standards?
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77