What is our primary use case?
We were trying to use Salesforce for an ecosystem to create a loan origination system. So, we are developing a product on the Salesforce platform.
What is most valuable?
Salesforce's out-of-the-box features are sufficient for most businesses. For instance, if I consider Sales Cloud and Service Cloud, they encompass almost every feature that businesses need for their sales and service processes. If customization is required, Salesforce offers good options, such as using their process automation tool called "Flow" or taking the programming route with Apex programming. They provide a wide range of capabilities under what they call "No code," "Low code," and "Pro code" options. Businesses can use these to tailor their processes on the Salesforce platform.
What needs improvement?
Salesforce introduces a lot of products and sometimes rebrands them, causing confusion. They acquire products like W and retain their names, creating confusion in the market. This confusion isn't related to the product's functionality but rather its positioning and rebranding. For instance, what was once known as Community Cloud is now referred to as Experience Cloud. This can be confusing for business leaders. Regarding the product's functionality, I find it quite competent.
We did encounter some issues with Einstein, specifically Einstein Discovery, which is Salesforce's tool for building machine learning models. While it offers out-of-the-box features, we faced occasional problems with it not running properly and had to seek support from Salesforce. There were also some bugs affecting the results. The features didn't always seem stable. The support we received was often delayed, which was frustrating. So, in terms of Einstein Discovery, there were some issues with stability. Our support issues were primarily related to Einstein Discovery. We were getting really late support.
So, there is room for improvement in Einstein Discovery.
For how long have I used the solution?
We have been working with this platform for close to two years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The solution is highly stable. They are among the best in this regard. They prioritize transparency and trust, promptly reporting any outages. Therefore, the solution consistently maintains its uptime without issues.
Our customers are in the enterprise category. They have a considerable number of licenses, more than 10,000.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Salesforce is indeed scalable. The key is to strictly follow to their design guidelines and recommendations when it comes to data storage. Since it's a cloud-based platform, they suggest using external objects for smaller data. By following their recommendations, there are no inherent limitations in scalability. They also offer options for data archival. However, the challenge arises when organizations deviate from these recommendations, which can lead to performance and scalability issues.
The current recommendations are quite satisfactory. Considering it's a cloud platform, the capabilities are impressive. The only challenge is that as the platform grows, it becomes more complex. There's now a greater degree of customization and additional features, which can be overwhelming for smaller clients who may not need all of them.
With Salesforce introducing numerous features annually, the product has become larger and more intricate. Before implementing these features, they undergo extensive due diligence. However, as the product has grown, it now contains a lot of features. Some of these features may not be relevant to a particular client. For instance, a smaller client that has purchased Salesforce might find these features overwhelming rather than beneficial. It would be helpful if they could also offer lightweight applications that cater to specific sets of features rather than providing everything to every client. However, this might not be feasible due to its cloud-based nature. Nevertheless, there are many features that do not add value to the client. To put it quantifiably, if an organization or client uses only 10% of 100 features, it implies that 90 features are superfluous. So, it has indeed become feature-rich. But how do we determine which features are actually being used? Is there uncertainty around that? The usage of features can be somewhat doubtful.
How are customer service and support?
Einstein Discovery support was somewhat delayed. The response time could be faster.
How was the initial setup?
Salesforce is cloud-based, so there's no installation involved. You simply log in using the provided organization login. There's no need for installation.
There are two approaches, managed and unmanaged packages. For maintenance, a team is required because new features need to be developed regularly. Everything is managed within Salesforce itself, including DevOps. The team is needed not just for maintenance but also for feature enhancements.
What about the implementation team?
The people required for the deployment process vary depending on the specific module or feature. For example, in a larger implementation like insurance, you might require a big implementation team of 15 to 1,000 people. However, even for a smaller 15-member team, ongoing maintenance and support by at least 10% of the team is necessary.
However, it's not fair to base this solely on team size. Suppose we're talking about a significant feature; we've delivered the entire thing in two to three months, but we still need at least two to 10% of the team to maintain it.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The licensing is on the expensive side, but most clients engage in negotiations to reach a more favorable agreement. For stand-alone or medium-sized clients, it can be relatively costly.
Currently, it operates mainly on a monthly basis, with options for yearly subscriptions. In practice, clients often opt for the annual subscription, which results in monthly billing.
Pricing is somewhat intricate in that regard. Salesforce offers various types of licenses, including unlimited, enterprise, and CFO licenses, along with different Sandboxes and channel support options. The licensing structure is not very straightforward. It's very cumbersome.
So customers have options within the license only where customers can get an option of different Sandboxes and channel supports.
What other advice do I have?
When planning a Salesforce implementation, or any similar platform for that matter, it's essential to have a crystal-clear understanding of your needs. This advice extends beyond Salesforce to other platforms as well.
Salesforce often provides recommendations on how objects and custom objects should be created. My suggestion would always be to aim for a solution that leans towards standardization. Avoid adding unnecessary complexity through extensive programming or excessive custom object creation.
I recommend leveraging no-code or low-code solutions rather than diving into pro-code development. Pro-code can introduce complexity, especially when dealing with new releases. With no-code and low-code approaches, you can ensure that your solutions remain robust and don't break with each update.
Therefore, it's advisable to rely on standard objects and processes as much as possible. If customization is required, prefer configuration or flow options. Only in the most complex scenarios should you consider pro-code, such as Apex programming. This approach ensures stability. Additionally, during the design phase, create plenty of instances to facilitate the entire process.
This advice is applicable across the board, but it's particularly crucial for Salesforce implementations. Properly planning data design and reference architecture before implementation is key. These principles can significantly impact the success of any implementation.
Overall, I would rate it as an eight out of ten. It's a very good solution, but it does come with complexity.
