Warranty Claim Recall- Case Study :: Pay Dealer Task
As per requirment
Every Claim includes one or more "Claim Tasks", which represent the work that must be done to resolve the claim. Most Claims are simple and have a single "Pay Dealer" Claim Task, but it can get more complex if disputes are involved.
One particular type of Claim Task is a "Part Return". This Claim Task stands apart from others, in that it requires an additional set of business rules, and its process is different.
Question 1: I assumed, Pay Dealer Task should be spin off from Claim Task. Since there is key word <<Most Claims are simple and have a single>> the <<have >> can we assume Claim Taks have PayDealer Task as spin off case from Claim Task ?
Question 1: Pay dealer task is a type of claim task therefore it would be a subclass of claim task, not a spin off or sub case. A spin off (or subcase) implies a claim task is dependant on (or composed of) pay dealer task and possibly other tasks to complete which is not correct.
How Can I assume it is sub class of Claim Task. There is no key word to say TYPE OF. It is very hard to phrase it. As I see PartsReturn Task is type of ClaimTask cleary is mentioned in requirement. Does << ClaimTask can have simple PasDealerTask>> to make it sub class of ClaimTask.
If we assume PayDealerTask is sub class of ClaimTask, Why it is not included in solution. Please find screenshot.
Posted: 4 years ago
Posted: 18 Sep 2016 21:39 EDT
James Adair (JamesAdair)
Sr. Manager, Global Tech Enablement - LSA Program
My mistake, I incorrecty mentioned above that Pay dealer task is a type of Claim task, however I should have stated Parts return. Pay dealar would be a process (flow) in the Claim Task class which could be spun off from the main flow as you have mentioned. Pay Dealer task was not created since this is a flow and the purpose of the lesson was to concentrate on Class structure.