What a Salesforce architecture review should actually cover
A useful review is not a decorative audit. It should expose the decisions that are increasing complexity, slowing delivery, or creating long-term risk.
1. The data model should be reviewed as a system, not object by object.
Many orgs accumulate design choices that made sense locally but clash globally. Duplicate concepts appear in multiple places. Ownership is unclear. Reporting requires workarounds. A proper review should look at whether the model still reflects the business cleanly and whether new work is being forced through bad structure.
2. Automation should be examined for overlap, friction, and operational risk.
The issue is rarely that a flow exists. The issue is usually that too many pieces of logic are competing, triggering unpredictably, or obscuring cause and effect. A review should identify where automation is coherent, where it is brittle, and where simplification would reduce delivery risk.
3. Integrations should be reviewed for boundaries, ownership, and failure handling.
If Salesforce exchanges data with other systems, the review should check more than mappings. It should look at what each system is responsible for, how failures are surfaced, and whether the integration design creates avoidable coupling.
4. Security and access should be reviewed against real operating needs.
Security design should support the business without becoming a constant source of exceptions and patches. The goal is not theoretical perfection. The goal is a model that is sensible, supportable, and aligned with how the organization actually works.
5. Delivery friction should be treated as architecture feedback.
If every change feels harder than it should, that is not just a process problem. It is often a signal that the system design is working against the team. Reviews should include the points where delivery slows down, because that is often where technical debt is most visible.
What the client should get at the end
A good review produces a clear view of where complexity is coming from, which issues deserve priority, and what practical next steps would reduce risk or improve delivery. It should help the client make better decisions, not just feel briefly reassured.
If you need that kind of review, start here.