Download Valid ACD301 Dumps for Best Preparation 1 / 17 Exam : ACD301 Title : https://www.passcert.com/ACD301.html Appian Lead Developer Download Valid ACD301 Dumps for Best Preparation 2 / 17 1.You are reviewing the Engine Performance Logs in Production for a single application that has been live for six months. This application experiences concurrent user activity and has a fairly sustained load during business hours. The client has reported performance issues with the application during business hours. During your investigation, you notice a high Work Queue - Java Work Queue Size value in the logs. You also notice unattended process activities, including timer events and sending notification emails, are taking far longer to execute than normal. The client increased the number of CPU cores prior to the application going live. What is the next recommendation? A. Add more engine replicas. B. Optimize slow-performing user interfaces. C. Add more application servers. D. Add execution and analytics shards Answer: A Explanation: As an Appian Lead Developer, analyzing Engine Performance Logs to address performance issues in a Production application requires understanding Appian ’ s architecture and the specific metrics described. The scenario indicates a high “ Work Queue - Java Work Queue Size, ” which reflects a backlog of tasks in the Java Work Queue (managed by Appian engines), and delays in unattended process activities (e.g., timer events, email notifications). These symptoms suggest the Appian engines are overloaded, despite the client increasing CPU cores. Let ’ s evaluate each option: A. Add more engine replicas: This is the correct recommendation. In Appian, engine replicas (part of the Appian Engine cluster) handle process execution, including unattended tasks like timers and notifications. A high Java Work Queue Size indicates the engines are overwhelmed by concurrent activity during business hours, causing delays. Adding more engine replicas distributes the workload, reducing queue size and improving performance for both user-driven and unattended tasks. Appian ’ s documentation recommends scaling engine replicas to handle sustained loads, especially in Production with high. concurrency. Since CPU cores were already increased (likely on application servers), the bottleneck is likely the engine capacity, not the servers. B. Optimize slow-performing user interfaces: While optimizing user interfaces (e.g., SAIL forms, reports) can improve user experience, the scenario highlights delays in unattended activities (timers, emails), not UI performance. The Java Work Queue Size issue points to engine-level processing, not UI rendering, so this doesn ’ t address the root cause. Appian ’ s performance tuning guidelines prioritize engine scaling for queue-related issues, making this a secondary concern. C. Add more application servers: Application servers handle web traffic (e.g., SAIL interfaces, API calls), not process execution or unattended tasks managed by engines. Increasing application servers would help with UI concurrency but wouldn ’ t reduce the Java Work Queue Size or speed up timer/email processing, as these are engine responsibilities. Since the client already increased CPU cores (likely on application servers), this is redundant and unrelated to the issue. D. Add execution and analytics shards: Execution shards (for process data) and analytics shards (for reporting) are part of Appian ’ s data fabric for scalability, but they don ’ t directly address engine workload or Java Work Queue Size. Download Valid ACD301 Dumps for Best Preparation 3 / 17 Shards optimize data storage and query performance, not real-time process execution. The logs indicate an engine bottleneck, not a data storage issue, so this isn ’ t relevant. Appian ’ s documentation confirms shards are for long-term scaling, not immediate performance fixes. Conclusion: Adding more engine replicas (A) is the next recommendation. It directly resolves the high Java Work Queue Size and delays in unattended tasks, aligning with Appian ’ s architecture for handling concurrent loads in Production. This requires collaboration with system administrators to configure additional replicas in the Appian cluster. Reference: Appian Documentation: "Engine Performance Monitoring" (Java Work Queue and Scaling Replicas). Appian Lead Developer Certification: Performance Optimization Module (Engine Scaling Strategies). Appian Best Practices: "Managing Production Performance" (Work Queue Analysis). 2.You are developing a case management application to manage support cases for a large set of sites. One of the tabs in this application s site Is a record grid of cases, along with Information about the site corresponding to that case. Users must be able to filter cases by priority level and status. You decide to create a view as the source of your entity-backed record, which joins the separate case/site tables (as depicted in the following Image). Which three column should be indexed? A. site_id B. status C. name D. modified_date E. priority F. case_id Answer: ABE Explanation: Indexing columns can improve the performance of queries that use those columns in filters, joins, or order by clauses. In this case, the columns that should be indexed are site_id, status, and priority, because they are used for filtering or joining the tables. Site_id is used to join the case and site tables, so indexing it will speed up the join operation. Status and priority are used to filter the cases by the user ’ s input, so indexing Download Valid ACD301 Dumps for Best Preparation 4 / 17 them will reduce the number of rows that need to be scanned. Name, modified_date, and case_id do not need to be indexed, because they are not used for filtering or joining. Name and modified_date are only used for displaying information in the record grid, and case_id is only used as a unique identifier for each record. Verified Reference: Appian Records Tutorial, Appian Best Practices As an Appian Lead Developer, optimizing a database view for an entity-backed record grid requires indexing columns frequently used in queries, particularly for filtering and joining. The scenario involves a record grid displaying cases with site information, filtered by “ priority level ” and “ status, ” and joined via the site_id foreign key. The image shows two tables (site and case) with a relationship via site_id. Let ’ s evaluate each column based on Appian ’ s performance best practices and query patterns: A. site_id:. This is a primary key in the site table and a foreign key in the case table, used for joining the tables in the view. Indexing site_id in the case table (and ensuring it ’ s indexed in site as a PK) optimizes JOIN operations, reducing query execution time for the record grid. Appian ’ s documentation recommends indexing foreign keys in large datasets to improve query performance, especially for entity-backed records. This is critical for the join and must be included. B. status: Users filter cases by “ status ” (a varchar column in the case table). Indexing status speeds up filtering queries (e.g., WHERE status = 'Open') in the record grid, particularly with large datasets. Appian emphasizes indexing columns used in WHERE clauses or filters to enhance performance, making this a key column for optimization. Since status is a common filter, it ’ s essential. C. name: This is a varchar column in the site table, likely used for display (e.g., site name in the grid). However, the scenario doesn ’ t mention filtering or sorting by name, and it ’ s not part of the join or required filters. Indexing name could improve searches if used, but it ’ s not a priority given the focus on priority and status filters. Appian advises indexing only frequently queried or filtered columns to avoid unnecessary overhead, so this isn ’ t necessary here. D. modified_date: This is a date column in the case table, tracking when cases were last updated. While useful for sorting or historical queries, the scenario doesn ’ t specify filtering or sorting by modified_date in the record grid. Indexing it could help if used, but it ’ s not critical for the current requirements. Appian ’ s performance guidelines prioritize indexing columns in active filters, making this lower priority than site_id, status, and priority. E. priority: Users filter cases by “ priority level ” (a varchar column in the case table). Indexing priority optimizes filtering queries (e.g., WHERE priority = 'High') in the record grid, similar to status. Appian ’ s documentation highlights indexing columns used in WHERE clauses for entity-backed records, especially with large datasets. Since priority is a specified filter, it ’ s essential to include. F. case_id: This is the primary key in the case table, already indexed by default (as PKs are automatically indexed in most databases). Indexing it again is redundant and unnecessary, as Appian ’ s Data Store configuration relies on PKs for unique identification but doesn ’ t require additional indexing for performance in this context. The focus is on join and filter columns, not the PK itself. Conclusion: The three columns to index are A (site_id), B (status), and E (priority). These optimize the JOIN (site_id) and filter performance (status, priority) for the record grid, aligning with Appian ’ s recommendations for entity-backed records and large datasets. Indexing these columns ensures efficient querying for user filters, critical for the application ’ s performance. Reference: Appian Documentation: "Performance Best Practices for Data Stores" (Indexing Strategies). Appian Lead Developer Certification: Data Management Module (Optimizing Entity-Backed Records). Download Valid ACD301 Dumps for Best Preparation 5 / 17 Appian Best Practices: "Working with Large Data Volumes" (Indexing for Query Performance). 3.You are running an inspection as part of the first deployment process from TEST to PROD. You receive a notice that one of your objects will not deploy because it is dependent on an object from an application owned by a separate team. What should be your next step? A. Create your own object with the same code base, replace the dependent object in the application, and deploy to PROD. B. Halt the production deployment and contact the other team for guidance on promoting the object to PROD. C. Check the dependencies of the necessary object. Deploy to PROD if there are few dependencies and it is low risk. D. Push a functionally viable package to PROD without the dependencies, and plan the rest of the deployment accordingly with the other team ’ s constraints. Answer: B Explanation: As an Appian Lead Developer, managing a deployment from TEST to PROD requires careful handling of dependencies, especially when objects from another team ’ s application are involved. The scenario describes a dependency issue during deployment, signaling a need for collaboration and governance. Let ’ s evaluate each option: A. Create your own object with the same code base, replace the dependent object in the application, and deploy to PROD: This approach involves duplicating the object, which introduces redundancy, maintenance risks, and potential version control issues. It violates Appian ’ s governance principles, as objects should be owned and managed by their respective teams to ensure consistency and avoid conflicts. Appian ’ s deployment best practices discourage duplicating objects unless absolutely necessary, making this an unsustainable and risky solution. B. Halt the production deployment and contact the other team for guidance on promoting the object to PROD: This is the correct step. When an object from another application (owned by a separate team) is a dependency, Appian ’ s deployment process requires coordination to ensure both applications ’ objects are deployed in sync. Halting the deployment prevents partial deployments that could break functionality, and contacting the other team aligns with Appian ’ s collaboration and governance guidelines. The other team can provide the necessary object version, adjust their deployment timeline, or resolve the dependency, ensuring a stable PROD environment. C. Check the dependencies of the necessary object. Deploy to PROD if there are few dependencies and it is low risk: This approach risks deploying an incomplete or unstable application if the dependency isn ’ t fully resolved. Even with “ few dependencies ” and “ low risk, ” deploying without the other team ’ s object could lead to runtime errors or broken functionality in PROD. Appian ’ s documentation emphasizes thorough dependency management during deployment, requiring all objects (including those from other applications) to be promoted together, making this risky and not recommended. D. Push a functionally viable package to PROD without the dependencies, and plan the rest of the deployment accordingly with the other team ’ s constraints: Download Valid ACD301 Dumps for Best Preparation 6 / 17 Deploying without dependencies creates an incomplete solution, potentially leaving the application non-functional or unstable in PROD. Appian ’ s deployment process ensures all dependencies are included to maintain application integrity, and partial deployments are discouraged unless explicitly. planned (e.g., phased rollouts). This option delays resolution and increases risk, contradicting Appian ’ s best practices for Production stability. Conclusion: Halting the production deployment and contacting the other team for guidance (B) is the next step. It ensures proper collaboration, aligns with Appian ’ s governance model, and prevents deployment errors, providing a safe and effective resolution. Reference: Appian Documentation: "Deployment Best Practices" (Managing Dependencies Across Applications). Appian Lead Developer Certification: Application Management Module (Cross-Team Collaboration). Appian Best Practices: "Handling Production Deployments" (Dependency Resolution). 4.You need to design a complex Appian integration to call a RESTful API. The RESTful API will be used to update a case in a customer ’ s legacy system. What are three prerequisites for designing the integration? A. Define the HTTP method that the integration will use. B. Understand the content of the expected body, including each field type and their limits. C. Understand whether this integration will be used in an interface or in a process model. D. Understand the different error codes managed by the API and the process of error handling in Appian. E. Understand the business rules to be applied to ensure the business logic of the data. Answer: A, B, D Explanation: As an Appian Lead Developer, designing a complex integration to a RESTful API for updating a case in a legacy system requires a structured approach to ensure reliability, performance, and alignment with business needs. The integration involves sending a JSON payload (implied by the context) and handling responses, so the focus is on technical and functional prerequisites. Let ’ s evaluate each option: A. Define the HTTP method that the integration will use: This is a primary prerequisite. RESTful APIs use HTTP methods (e.g., POST, PUT, GET) to define the operation — here, updating a case likely requires PUT or POST. Appian ’ s Connected System and Integration objects require specifying the method to configure the HTTP request correctly. Understanding the API ’ s method ensures the integration aligns with its design, making this essential for design. Appian ’ s documentation emphasizes choosing the correct HTTP method as a foundational step. B. Understand the content of the expected body, including each field type and their limits: This is also critical. The JSON payload for updating a case includes fields (e.g., text, dates, numbers), and the API expects a specific structure with field types (e.g., string, integer) and limits (e.g., max length, size constraints). In Appian, the Integration object requires a dictionary or CDT to construct the body, and mismatches (e.g., wrong types, exceeding limits) cause errors (e.g., 400 Bad Request). Appian ’ s best practices mandate understanding the API schema to ensure data compatibility, making this a key prerequisite. C. Understand whether this integration will be used in an interface or in a process model: While knowing the context (interface vs. process model) is useful for design (e.g., synchronous vs. asynchronous calls), it ’ s not a prerequisite for the integration itself — it ’ s a usage consideration. Appian Download Valid ACD301 Dumps for Best Preparation 7 / 17 supports integrations in both contexts, and the integration ’ s design (e.g., HTTP method, body) remains the same. This is secondary to technical API details, so it ’ s not among the top three prerequisites. D. Understand the different error codes managed by the API and the process of error handling in Appian: This is essential. RESTful APIs return HTTP status codes (e.g., 200 OK, 400 Bad Request, 500 Internal Server Error), and the customer ’ s API likely documents these for failure scenarios (e.g., invalid data, server issues). Appian ’ s Integration objects can handle errors via error mappings or process models, and understanding these codes ensures robust error handling (e.g., retry logic, user notifications). Appian ’ s documentation stresses error handling as a core design element for reliable integrations, making this a primary prerequisite. E. Understand the business rules to be applied to ensure the business logic of the data: While business rules (e.g., validating case data before sending) are important for the overall application, they aren ’ t a prerequisite for designing the integration itself — they ’ re part of the application logic (e.g., process model or interface). The integration focuses on technical interaction with the API, not business validation, which can be handled separately in Appian. This is a secondary concern, not a core design requirement for the integration. Conclusion: The three prerequisites are A (define the HTTP method), B (understand the body content and limits), and D (understand error codes and handling). These ensure the integration is technically sound, compatible with the API, and resilient to errors — critical for a complex RESTful API integration in Appian. Reference: Appian Documentation: "Designing REST Integrations" (HTTP Methods, Request Body, Error Handling). Appian Lead Developer Certification: Integration Module (Prerequisites for Complex Integrations). Appian Best Practices: "Building Reliable API Integrations" (Payload and Error Management). To design a complex Appian integration to call a RESTful API, you need to have some prerequisites, such as: Define the HTTP method that the integration will use. The HTTP method is the action that the integration will perform on the API, such as GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, or DELETE. The HTTP method determines how the data will be sent and received by the API, and what kind of response will be expected. Understand the content of the expected body, including each field type and their limits. The body is the data that the integration will send to the API, or receive from the API, depending on the HTTP method. The body can be in different formats, such as JSON, XML, or form data. You need to understand how to structure the body according to the API specification, and what kind of data types and values are allowed for each field. Understand the different error codes managed by the API and the process of error handling in Appian. The error codes are the status codes that indicate whether the API request was successful or not, and what kind of problem occurred if not. The error codes can range from 200 (OK) to 500 (Internal Server Error), and each code has a different meaning and implication. You need to understand how to handle different error codes in Appian, and how to display meaningful messages. to the user or log them for debugging purposes. The other two options are not prerequisites for designing the integration, but rather considerations for implementing it. Understand whether this integration will be used in an interface or in a process model. This is not a prerequisite, but rather a decision that you need to make based on your application requirements and design. You can use an integration either in an interface or in a process model, depending on where you need to call the API and how you want to handle the response. For example, if you need to update a case Download Valid ACD301 Dumps for Best Preparation 8 / 17 in real-time based on user input, you may want to use an integration in an interface. If you need to update a case periodically based on a schedule or an event, you may want to use an integration in a process model. Understand the business rules to be applied to ensure the business logic of the data. This is not a prerequisite, but rather a part of your application logic that you need to implement after designing the integration. You need to apply business rules to validate, transform, or enrich the data that you send or receive from the API, according to your business requirements and logic. For example, you may need to check if the case status is valid before updating it in the legacy system, or you may need to add some additional information to the case data before displaying it in Appian. 5.HOTSPOT For each requirement, match the most appropriate approach to creating or utilizing plug-ins Each approach will be used once. Note: To change your responses, you may deselect your response by clicking the blank space at the top of the selection list. Answer: Read barcode values from images containing barcodes and QR codes. → Smart Service plug-in Display an externally hosted geolocation/mapping application ’ s interface within Appian to allow users of Download Valid ACD301 Dumps for Best Preparation 9 / 17 Appian to see where a customer (stored within Appian) is located. → Web-content field Display an externally hosted geolocation/mapping application ’ s interface within Appian to allow users of Appian to select where a customer is located and store the selected address in Appian. → Component plug-in Generate a barcode image file based on values entered by users. → Function plug-in Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation Appian plug-ins extend functionality by integrating custom Java code into the platform. The four approaches — Web-content field, Component plug-in, Smart Service plug-in, and Function plug-in — serve distinct purposes, and each requirement must be matched to the most appropriate one based on its use case. Appian ’ s Plug-in Development Guide provides the framework for these decisions. Read barcode values from images containing barcodes and QR codes → Smart Service plug-in: This requirement involves processing image data to extract barcode or QR code values, a task that typically occurs within a process model (e.g., as part of a workflow). A Smart Service plug-in is ideal because it allows custom Java logic to be executed as a node in a process, enabling the decoding of images and returning the extracted values to Appian. This approach integrates seamlessly with Appian ’ s process automation, making it the best fit for data extraction tasks. Display an externally hosted geolocation/mapping application ’ s interface within Appian to allow users of Appian to see where a customer (stored within Appian) is located → Web-content field: This requires embedding an external mapping interface (e.g., Google Maps) within an Appian interface. A Web-content field is the appropriate choice, as it allows you to embed HTML, JavaScript, or iframe content from an external source directly into an Appian form or report. This approach is lightweight and does not require custom Java development, aligning with Appian ’ s recommendation for displaying external content without interactive data storage. Display an externally hosted geolocation/mapping application ’ s interface within Appian to allow users of Appian to select where a customer is located and store the selected address in Appian → Component plug-in: This extends the previous requirement by adding interactivity (selecting an address) and data storage. A Component plug-in is suitable because it enables the creation of a custom interface component (e.g., a map selector) that can be embedded in Appian interfaces. The plug-in can handle user interactions, communicate with the external mapping service, and update Appian data stores, offering a robust solution for interactive external integrations. Generate a barcode image file based on values entered by users → Function plug-in: This involves generating an image file dynamically based on user input, a task that can be executed within an expression or interface. A Function plug-in is the best match, as it allows custom Java logic to be called as an expression function (e.g., pluginGenerateBarcode(value)), returning the generated image. This approach is efficient for single-purpose operations and integrates well with Appian ’ s expression-based design. Matching Rationale: Each approach is used once, as specified, covering the spectrum of plug-in types: Smart Service for process-level tasks, Web-content field for static external display, Component plug-in for interactive components, and Function plug-in for expression-level operations. Appian ’ s plug-in framework discourages overlap (e.g., using a Smart Service for display or a Component for process tasks), ensuring the selected matches align with intended use cases. Reference: Appian Documentation - Plug-in Development Guide, Appian Interface Design Best Practices, Download Valid ACD301 Dumps for Best Preparation 10 / 17 Appian Lead Developer Training - Custom Integrations. 6.You have 5 applications on your Appian platform in Production. Users are now beginning to use multiple applications across the platform, and the client wants to ensure a consistent user experience across all applications. You notice that some applications use rich text, some use section layouts, and others use box layouts. The result is that each application has a different color and size for the header. What would you recommend to ensure consistency across the platform? A. Create constants for text size and color, and update each section to reference these values. B. In the common application, create a rule that can be used across the platform for section headers, and update each application to reference this new rule. C. In the common application, create one rule for each application, and update each application to reference its respective rule. D. In each individual application, create a rule that can be used for section headers, and update each application to reference its respective rule. Answer: B Explanation: Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation: As an Appian Lead Developer, ensuring a consistent user experience across multiple applications on the Appian platform involves centralizing reusable components and adhering to Appian ’ s design governance principles. The client ’ s concern about inconsistent headers (e.g., different colors, sizes, layouts) across applications using rich text, section layouts, and box layouts requires a scalable, maintainable solution. Let ’ s evaluate each option: A. Create constants for text size and color, and update each section to reference these values: Using constants (e.g., cons!TEXT_SIZE and cons!HEADER_COLOR) is a good practice for managing values, but it doesn ’ t address layout consistency (e.g., rich text vs. section layouts vs. box layouts). Constants alone can ’ t enforce uniform header design across applications, as they don ’ t encapsulate layout logic (e.g., a!sectionLayout() vs. a!richTextDisplayField()). This approach would require manual updates to each application ’ s components, increasing maintenance overhead and still risking inconsistency. Appian ’ s documentation recommends using rules for reusable UI components, not just constants, making this insufficient. B. In the common application, create a rule that can be used across the platform for section headers, and update each application to reference this new rule: This is the best recommendation. Appian supports a “ common application ” (often called a shared or utility application) to store reusable objects like expression rules, which can define consistent header designs (e.g., rule!CommonHeader(size: "LARGE", color: "PRIMARY")). By creating a single rule for headers and referencing it across all 5 applications, you ensure uniformity in layout, color, and size (e.g., using a!sectionLayout() or a!boxLayout() consistently). Appian ’ s design best practices emphasize centralizing UI components in a common application to reduce duplication, enforce standards, and simplify maintenance — perfect for achieving a consistent user experience. C. In the common application, create one rule for each application, and update each application to reference its respective rule: This approach creates separate header rules for each application (e.g., rule!App1Header, rule!App2Header), which contradicts the goal of consistency. While housed in the common application, it Download Valid ACD301 Dumps for Best Preparation 11 / 17 introduces variability (e.g., different colors or sizes per rule), defeating the purpose. Appian ’ s governance guidelines advocate for a single, shared rule to maintain uniformity, making this less efficient and unnecessary. D. In each individual application, create a rule that can be used for section headers, and update each application to reference its respective rule: Creating separate rules in each application (e.g., rule!App1Header in App 1, rule!App2Header in App 2) leads to duplication and inconsistency, as each rule could differ in design. This approach increases maintenance effort and risks diverging styles, violating the client ’ s requirement for a “ consistent user experience. ” Appian ’ s best practices discourage duplicating UI logic, favoring centralized rules in a common application instead. Conclusion: Creating a rule in the common application for section headers and referencing it across the platform (B) ensures consistency in header design (color, size, layout) while minimizing duplication and maintenance. This leverages Appian ’ s application architecture for shared objects, aligning with Lead Developer standards for UI governance. Reference: Appian Documentation: "Designing for Consistency Across Applications" (Common Application Best Practices). Appian Lead Developer Certification: UI Design Module (Reusable Components and Rules). Appian Best Practices: "Maintaining User Experience Consistency" (Centralized UI Rules). The best way to ensure consistency across the platform is to create a rule that can be used across the platform for section headers. This rule can be created in the common application, and then each application can be updated to reference this rule. This will ensure that all of the applications use the same color and size for the header, which will provide a consistent user experience. The other options are not as effective. Option A, creating constants for text size and color, and updating each section to reference these values, would require updating each section in each application. This would be a lot of work, and it would be easy to make mistakes. Option C, creating one rule for each application, would also require updating each application. This would be less work than option A, but it would still be a lot of work, and it would be easy to make mistakes. Option D, creating a rule in each individual application, would not ensure consistency across the platform. Each application would have its own rule, and the rules could be different. This would not provide a consistent user experience. Best Practices: When designing a platform, it is important to consider the user experience. A consistent user experience will make it easier for users to learn and use the platform. When creating rules, it is important to use them consistently across the platform. This will ensure that the platform has a consistent look and feel. When updating the platform, it is important to test the changes to ensure that they do not break the user experience. 7.You are tasked to build a large-scale acquisition application for a prominent customer. The acquisition process tracks the time it takes to fulfill a purchase request with an award. The customer has structured the contract so that there are multiple application development teams. How should you design for multiple processes and forms, while minimizing repeated code? A. Create a Center of Excellence (CoE). B. Create a common objects application. Download Valid ACD301 Dumps for Best Preparation 12 / 17 C. Create a Scrum of Scrums sprint meeting for the team leads. D. Create duplicate processes and forms as needed. Answer: B Explanation: As an Appian Lead Developer, designing a large-scale acquisition application with multiple development teams requires a strategy to manage processes, forms, and code reuse effectively. The goal is to minimize repeated code (e.g., duplicate interfaces, process models) while ensuring scalability and maintainability across teams. Let ’ s evaluate each option: A. Create a Center of Excellence (CoE): A Center of Excellence is an organizational structure or team focused on standardizing practices, training, and governance across projects. While beneficial for long-term consistency, it doesn ’ t directly address the technical design of minimizing repeated code for processes and forms. It ’ s a strategic initiative, not a design solution, and doesn ’ t solve the immediate need for code reuse. Appian ’ s documentation mentions CoEs for governance but not as a primary design approach, making this less relevant here. B. Create a common objects application: This is the best recommendation. In Appian, a “ common objects application ” (or shared application) is used to store reusable components like expression rules, interfaces, process models, constants, and data types (e.g., CDTs). For a large-scale acquisition application with multiple teams, centralizing shared objects (e.g., rule!CommonForm, pm!CommonProcess) ensures consistency, reduces duplication, and simplifies maintenance. Teams can reference these objects in their applications, adhering to Appian ’ s design best practices for scalability. This approach minimizes repeated code while allowing team-specific customizations, aligning with Lead Developer standards for large projects. C. Create a Scrum of Scrums sprint meeting for the team leads: A Scrum of Scrums meeting is a coordination mechanism for Agile teams, focusing on aligning sprint goals and resolving cross-team dependencies. While useful for collaboration, it doesn ’ t address the technical design of minimizing repeated code — it ’ s a process, not a solution for code reuse. Appian ’ s Agile methodologies support such meetings, but they don ’ t directly reduce duplication in processes and forms, making this less applicable. D. Create duplicate processes and forms as needed: Duplicating processes and forms (e.g., copying interface!PurchaseForm for each team) leads to redundancy, increased maintenance effort, and potential inconsistencies (e.g., divergent logic). This contradicts the goal of minimizing repeated code and violates Appian ’ s design principles for reusability and efficiency. Appian ’ s documentation strongly discourages duplication, favoring shared objects instead, making this the least effective option. Conclusion: Creating a common objects application (B) is the recommended design. It centralizes reusable processes, forms, and other components, minimizing code duplication across teams while ensuring consistency and scalability for the large-scale acquisition application. This leverages Appian ’ s application architecture for shared resources, aligning with Lead Developer best practices for multi-team projects. Reference: Appian Documentation: "Designing Large-Scale Applications" (Common Application for Reusable Objects). Appian Lead Developer Certification: Application Design Module (Minimizing Code Duplication). Appian Best Practices: "Managing Multi-Team Development" (Shared Objects Strategy). To build a large scale acquisition application for a prominent customer, you should design for multiple Download Valid ACD301 Dumps for Best Preparation 13 / 17 processes and forms, while minimizing repeated code. One way to do this is to create a common objects application, which is a shared application that contains reusable components, such as rules, constants, interfaces, integrations, or data types, that can be used by multiple applications. This way, you can avoid duplication and inconsistency of code, and make it easier to maintain and update your applications. You can also use the common objects application to define common standards and best practices for your application development teams, such as naming conventions, coding styles, or documentation guidelines. Verified Reference: [Appian Best Practices], [Appian Design Guidance] 8.HOTSPOT For each scenario outlined, match the best tool to use to meet expectations. Each tool will be used once Note: To change your responses, you may deselected your response by clicking the blank space at the top of the selection list. Answer: As a user, if I update an object of type "Customer", the value of the given field should be displayed on the "Company" Record List. → Database Complex View Download Valid ACD301 Dumps for Best Preparation 14 / 17 As a user, if I update an object of type "Customer", a simple data transformation needs to be performed on related objects of the same type (namely, all the customers related to the same company). → Database Trigger As a user, if I update an object of type "Customer", some complex data transformations need to be performed on related objects of type "Customer", "Company", and "Contract". → Database Stored Procedure As a user, if I update an object of type "Customer", some simple data transformations need to be performed on related objects of type "Company", "Address", and "Contract". → Write to Data Store Entity smart service Appian integrates with external databases to handle data updates and transformations, offering various tools depending on the complexity and context of the task. The scenarios involve updating a "Customer" object and triggering actions on related data, requiring careful selection of the best tool. Appian ’ s Data Integration and Database Management documentation guides these decisions. As a user, if I update an object of type "Customer", the value of the given field should be displayed on the "Company" Record List → Database Complex View: This scenario requires displaying updated customer data on a "Company" Record List, implying a read-only operation to join or aggregate data across tables. A Database Complex View (e.g., a SQL view combining "Customer" and "Company" tables) is ideal for this. Appian supports complex views to predefine queries that can be used in Record Lists, ensuring the updated field value is reflected without additional processing. This tool is best for read operations and does not involve write logic. As a user, if I update an object of type "Customer", a simple data transformation needs to be performed on related objects of the same type (namely, all the customers related to the same company) → Database Trigger: This involves a simple transformation (e.g., updating a flag or counter) on related "Customer" records after an update. A Database Trigger, executed automatically on the database side when a "Customer" record is modified, is the best fit. It can perform lightweight SQL updates on related records (e.g., via a company ID join) without Appian process overhead. Appian recommends triggers for simple, database-level automatio