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

UiPath Exam UiPath-ASAPv1 Topic 1 Question 16 Discussion

Actual exam question for UiPath's UiPath-ASAPv1 exam
Question #: 16
Topic #: 1
[All UiPath-ASAPv1 Questions]

Given the High-Level Diagram, what is the best improvement that the Solution Architect should make at the process level?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

Splitting the process into three distinct sub-processes - Dispatcher, Performer, and Reporter - aligns with best practices for RPA design, promoting modularity and scalability. The Dispatcher's role would be to initialize the process, such as identifying and queuing work items. The Performer would then take over to handle the core automation tasks (steps 2 to 4), focusing on processing the queued items. Finally, the Reporter would compile and present the results or outcomes of the automation (steps 5 to 7). This structure not only clarifies the process flow but also facilitates easier maintenance and updates, as each sub-process can be modified independently without affecting the others.


UiPath REFramework Guide: Dispatcher-Performer Model

UiPath Best Practices: Framework for Process Design

Contribute your Thoughts:

Rhea
4 months ago
Hmm, I wonder if the Solution Architect is feeling a bit 'Dispatcher-ical' today. Maybe they just need a 'Performer' of a solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rosenda
4 months ago
Option D is the way to go, for sure. Keep it simple, stupid. Two sub-processes is the perfect solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carey
4 months ago
I don't know, the current process seems fine to me. Why fix what ain't broken, you know?
upvoted 0 times
Coral
3 months ago
I agree, splitting the process could help improve performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Solange
3 months ago
Maybe we should consider splitting the process into sub-processes for better efficiency.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rene
3 months ago
I think the current process is fine as it is.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Vallie
5 months ago
I think option C is valid too, sometimes no improvement is needed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rory
5 months ago
But option A splits the process into Performer and Reporter, which can improve efficiency.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kiley
5 months ago
Option B sounds like the best solution to me. Splitting it into three sub-processes seems like the most efficient way to handle the different steps.
upvoted 0 times
Dorothy
3 months ago
Option B does seem like the most efficient choice. It clearly defines the steps for each role.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stefany
3 months ago
I agree, having separate sub-processes for Dispatcher, Performer, and Reporter makes it more organized.
upvoted 0 times
...
Beckie
3 months ago
I think Option B is the way to go. It splits the process into three sub-processes.
upvoted 0 times
...
Denae
4 months ago
Option B does sound like a good improvement. It's clear and organized.
upvoted 0 times
...
Reid
4 months ago
Yeah, I agree. It seems like the most efficient way to handle the different steps.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brinda
4 months ago
I think Option B is the way to go. It splits the process into three sub-processes.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Mitsue
5 months ago
I disagree, I believe option D is the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annamaria
5 months ago
This process could definitely use some streamlining. I think splitting it into two sub-processes with a clear division of responsibilities is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
Marla
4 months ago
D) Split the process in two sub-processes - Dispatcher and Performer as follows: Dispatcher: Step 1 Performer: Step 2 to Step 7
upvoted 0 times
...
Rebeca
4 months ago
B) Split the process in three sub-processes - Dispatcher. Performer and Reporter as follows: Dispatcher: Step 1 Performer: Step 2 to Step 4 Reporter: Step 5 to Step 7
upvoted 0 times
...
Sharita
5 months ago
A) Split the process in two sub-processes - Performer and Reporter as follows: Dispatcher: Step 1 to Step 6 Performer: Step 7
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Rory
5 months ago
I think the best improvement is option A.
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