A customer wants to assign work to Resources by postal code coverages, each Resource covering one or more postal codes. The solution must also…

Mapping resources to specific Zip Codes (which are not necessarily Service Territories) is a common

high-volume requirement.

Option A is correct. Creating a standard Service Territory for every postal code (Option D) creates a

hierarchy that is too deep and hurts performance.

Instead, modeling "Zip Code Coverage" as a Custom Object (or data table) allows for a cleaner data

model. You then use the Extended Match Work Rule. This rule is highly flexible; it can verify that the

Zip Code on the Service Appointment matches a record in the Zip Codes Covered related list on the

Service Resource. This supports optimization without bloating the Territory or Skill tables.

Option B (Match Fields) only works for 1-to-1 matching (e.g., The Resource has one zip field). It

cannot easily handle a resource covering 50 different zip codes unless you use the custom object

approach described in A.