ITIL 4 emphasizes stakeholder satisfaction as a key indicator of whether a practice meets organizational needs and context, as it reflects the value delivered to users and the business. Option B, asking stakeholders about their satisfaction with deployment lead times, directly assesses whether deployment approaches are effective and aligned with expectations, making it the best method to evaluate the objective.

Option A (By looking at the deployment backlog throughput): Incorrect, as throughput measures efficiency but does not directly indicate whether the deployment approach fits the organization's needs or context.

Option B (By asking stakeholders about their satisfaction with deployment lead times): Correct, as stakeholder feedback on lead times reflects whether deployments are timely and valuable, aligning with ITIL 4's focus on value co-creation.

Option C (By measuring the percentage of deployments which did not follow the agreed policies and models): Incorrect, as non-compliance indicates process issues but does not directly assess fit with organizational needs or stakeholder satisfaction.

Option D (By analyzing the adherence to deployment schedules): Incorrect, as schedule adherence measures operational performance, not whether the approach meets broader contextual needs.

ITIL 4's value stream analysis focuses on understanding the contribution of each step to overall value delivery to identify improvement opportunities. When evaluating workflow steps, the manager should establish what value is created in each step (Option D), as this provides the foundation for assessing whether steps are necessary, effective, or aligned with organizational goals.

Option A (Collect data about what happens in each workflow step): Incorrect, as data collection is part of identifying steps (already done, per the question), not evaluating their value.

Option B (Identify wasteful steps that could be eliminated): Incorrect, as identifying waste is a subsequent action that depends on first understanding the value of each step.

Option C (Define an ideal series of workflow steps for the future): Incorrect, as defining future steps is part of planning improvements, not evaluating current steps.

Option D (Establish what value is created in each workflow step): Correct, as evaluating value per step is critical to understanding the stream's effectiveness and prioritizing improvements, per ITIL 4.

The issue of errors and delays due to unplanned manual configuration of target environments points to inconsistent or poorly managed environments. ITIL 4 recommends leveraging Infrastructure as Code (IaC) (Option A) to address this, as IaC automates and standardizes environment provisioning, ensuring consistency and reducing manual errors.

Option A (Leverage Infrastructure as Code): Correct, as IaC (e.g., using tools like Terraform or Ansible) defines environments in code, enabling repeatable, error-free setups and directly addressing the problem of manual configuration errors.

Option B (Use incremental deployments): Incorrect, as incremental deployments focus on releasing smaller changes but do not address the root cause of environment configuration issues.

Option C (Integrate build, test, and deployment activities): Incorrect, as while integration improves pipeline flow, it does not specifically resolve manual configuration errors in target environments.

Option D (Automate the CI/CD pipeline): Incorrect, as automating the pipeline is a broader solution that may include IaC, but it is not specific enough to address the environment configuration issue directly.

Automating notifications about faulty deployments requires tools that facilitate communication and process orchestration between teams. ITIL 4 recommends workflow management and collaboration tools (Option B), such as Slack, Microsoft Teams, or ServiceNow, to automate alerts, streamline communication, and ensure timely responses to deployment issues.

Option A (Service configuration management tools): Incorrect, as these tools manage configuration item data in a CMDB, not notifications or team communication.

Option B (Workflow management and collaboration tools): Correct, as these tools automate notifications and enable seamless collaboration between development and operations teams, addressing the issue directly.

Option C (Work planning and prioritization tools): Incorrect, as tools like Jira focus on task management, not real-time notification automation.

Option D (Environment configuration and management tools): Incorrect, as these tools (e.g., Puppet) manage environment setups, not team notifications.

ITIL 4 defines capability level 3 for a practice as achieving integration across the organization, where the practice is embedded into broader workflows and understood by related practices. For deployment management, an indication of reaching capability level 3 is when employees from other practices understand how deployment activities are integrated into relevant workflows (Option B). This demonstrates cross-functional alignment and maturity, showing that deployment management is not siloed but part of the organization's value streams.

Option A (The deployment management team regularly suggests and implements improvement opportunities): Incorrect, as continual improvement is characteristic of higher capability levels (e.g., level 4), not the defining feature of level 3.

Option B (Employees from other practices understand how deployment activities are integrated into relevant workflows): Correct, as level 3 focuses on integration and collaboration across practices, per ITIL 4's capability framework.

Option C (The deployment manager is able to report on the effectiveness of the deployment management practice): Incorrect, as reporting effectiveness is a general management task, not specific to level 3 maturity.

Option D (Deployment models are developed and implemented): Incorrect, as model development occurs at lower capability levels (e.g., level 1 or 2), not a hallmark of level 3.