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-335 Topic 5 Question 26 Discussion

Actual exam question for Microsoft's MB-335 exam
Question #: 26
Topic #: 5
[All MB-335 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 on the review screen.

A manufacturing company produces electronic components and devices.

The company has scheduling issues related to using working time calendars in manufacturing.

You need to ensure that the working time calendar is used when manufacturing jobs are scheduled.

Solution: Enable route groups for a capacity job type.

Does the solution meet the goal?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

Contribute your Thoughts:

Stephaine
4 months ago
Enabling route groups? Sounds like we're trying to solve a manufacturing problem with a software engineering solution. I bet the developers are having a field day with this one.
upvoted 0 times
Laurena
2 months ago
Mica: True, it does seem like an interesting approach to the problem.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jolene
3 months ago
But isn't that more of a software solution than a manufacturing one?
upvoted 0 times
...
Mica
3 months ago
Yeah, it might help with scheduling the manufacturing jobs.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yoko
3 months ago
I think enabling route groups for a capacity job type could work.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Paris
4 months ago
Ah, the age-old question of 'Does it meet the goal?' The answer is like a well-crafted dad joke - it depends on the context and your sense of humor.
upvoted 0 times
Leatha
3 months ago
B) No
upvoted 0 times
...
Elvera
3 months ago
A) Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Jutta
4 months ago
Wait, does that mean I have to enable route groups for every job type? That sounds like a lot of extra work. I don't know if that's the best approach here.
upvoted 0 times
Joseph
3 months ago
I'm not sure, it does seem like a lot of extra work to enable route groups for every job type.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gianna
4 months ago
No
upvoted 0 times
...
Armando
4 months ago
Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Gerald
4 months ago
I'm not so sure about that. Enabling route groups seems like it might be overkill for a simple working time calendar issue. There might be a simpler way to address this.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mirta
4 months ago
Hmm, enabling route groups for a capacity job type? Sounds like a potential solution, but I'd need to know more about the specific scheduling issues the company is facing.
upvoted 0 times
Kimbery
3 months ago
Agreed, understanding the specific issues is key to finding the right solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kirk
3 months ago
That makes sense. It's important to consider all the details before implementing a solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Julene
3 months ago
Yes, it should ensure that the working time calendar is used when manufacturing jobs are scheduled.
upvoted 0 times
...
Martina
4 months ago
I think enabling route groups for a capacity job type could help with the scheduling issues.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Taryn
5 months ago
I disagree, I don't think enabling route groups is the best solution for this issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Whitley
5 months ago
I'm not sure, I think there might be other factors to consider.
upvoted 0 times
...
Renay
5 months ago
I agree with Stevie, enabling route groups for a capacity job type should help with scheduling.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stevie
5 months ago
I think the solution meets the goal.
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