Data Modeling in Salesforce: Developer vs Architect Thinking

Let’s be honest — when most of us started with Salesforce, we were just trying to get things done.

“Need a way to store customer preferences? Sure, let’s make a custom object!”
“Need to connect this to Account? Master-Detail sounds fancy. Done!”

But with experience (and a few hair-pulling deployments), you begin to realize:
👉 There’s a big difference between Developer and Architect thinking when it comes to Data Modeling.

Let’s break it down, side-by-side — with real-world examples, lessons learned,

🎯 Real-Life Scenario: Custom Object Explosion

🚧 Developer Thinking:

Client wants to track customer feedback per product.
👉 Create a new object Feedback__c, relate it to Product__c.

🔍 Architect Thinking:

“Hold on… could this be a case of using Case, Survey, or even Task with a specific record type?”
➤ Reuse standard objects when possible = less technical debt, better integration, faster delivery.

📦 Another Example: Contact Roles

You want to link a Contact to multiple Opportunities.

A junior dev might say:

“Let’s create a Contact_Opportunity__c object with two lookup fields.”

💡 But an architect would say:

“That’s literally what OpportunityContactRole is for — a standard object built for this.”

Use standard when possible.
Always.

🧱 Dev vs Architect Thinking: Key Differences

Aspect	Developer	Architect
Goal	Make it work	Make it scale, integrate, and last
Focus	Objects & Fields	Data strategy, governance, security
Documentation	Optional	Mandatory
Collaboration	Solo dev	With Admins, BAs, and Enterprise Architects
Reusability	Not a priority	Core principle

🔍 Dev vs Architect Thinking: Side-by-Side

Scenario	Developer Thinking	Architect Thinking
Add feedback feature	Create `Feedback__c` object	Reuse `Case` or use `Task` with a Record Type
Relate Contact to Opportunities	Custom junction object	Use `OpportunityContactRole` standard object
Field naming	`cust1__c`, `misc__c`	`Customer_Feedback__c`, `Preferred_Language__c`
Sharing	“Org-wide default: Private”	Thoughtful role hierarchy, sharing rules, and security
Record Types	Create many for each process	Only when UI or picklists differ

📦 Developer Shortcut = Technical Debt Tomorrow

Let’s talk about technical debt.

Every time you take a shortcut like:

Copy-pasting objects
Skipping naming conventions
Ignoring scalability
Not thinking of long-term integrations

…you’re adding invisible debt.

And like credit card debt, it accumulates interest.

The more technical debt, the slower your org becomes.
More bugs. More confusion. Less confidence from the business team.

So, what’s the solution?

✅ The Architect’s Data Modeling Checklist

Here’s a checklist I personally use during every project. Before creating ANY object, I ask:

Can I reuse a standard object like Task, Case, Opportunity, Campaign, or Lead?
Is a Lookup better than Master-Detail for future flexibility?
Will this field name make sense to admins and business users?
Is a new Record Type justified by real UI or logic needs?
How will this impact sharing, visibility, and security?
Will it work well with reporting and dashboards?
Is this model future-proof for integrations and data growth?
Are we planning for field-level audit, deletions, and dependencies?
Have we reviewed the model visually with diagrams or Lucidchart?
Did we involve the Admins, Business Analysts, and other stakeholders?