how to succinctly explain the difference between a functional / solution architect from a technical architect - when it comes to Salesforce?
how to succinctly explain the difference between a functional / solution architect from a technical architect - when it comes to Salesforce?
Functional/Sol Arch -> map biz reqts to SFDC modules, facilitate biz process/workshops, wireframing, create functional design, eval solution options (use of config, extend thru code or use third party prods), identify need to integrate with other systems Tech Arch - data modeling, integration arch/design, data migration design, identity mgt, integ with third party apps, create tech/detailed designs. however, its seems unclear whether a sol/functional arch should know what the tech archs know (except coding) and it’s difficult to explain this to high level execs. I think it’s impt to differentiate both to effectively staff the right person...
Tech archs know code, Solution Archs focus on business process and declarative design, pretty simple
Tech arch can code
But what happens if you do both
@pwc1 I do both. I am better at one of the disciplines. So typically i do both (and have somebody check where I am weak) or I have somebody else play the other role all together.
Functional/solution arch. decides and is an expert on any decision that directly impacts end user experience and that which can be recognized by end user. Technical is the back end design to achieving the fulfilment of functional design.
Code vs non code. Functional architect can tell which technology to use as visual force for eg. But cannot code himself. Or review code.
Functional architects are more industry focused and generally comes from client facing background. Should at a minimum be able to configure (point and click) rather customize (code). Should have at least more than one product expertise (sales cloud, service cloud, FSC or health, CPQ, Commerce, FSL) etc
Logical Design vs. Physical Design