In every Salesforce CRM implementation, there’s often a disconnect between what’s described in an Agile story and what actually needs to be built. User stories may capture the “what” and “why,” but the “how”—particularly the technical specifics—tends to be assumed, fragmented, or skipped altogether. This leads to missed scope, inaccurate estimates, and painful rework.

To close this gap, I developed a Technical Input Architecture Process that ensures every Agile story includes the technical scaffolding needed for efficient, scalable delivery. Whether you’re working with declarative tools or Apex code, the process is designed to prompt the right architectural reviews and help teams build with clarity.

We start with five essential questions that every story or Epic should answer:

1. What object or field is being inserted, updated, or deleted?
2. Does the story require changes to security metadata, such as profiles or permission sets?
3. What Salesforce automation metadata is involved (Flows, Process Builders)?
4. Are custom code components, such as Apex, triggers, or OmniScripts, affected?
5. Will this story touch integrations, data migrations, or external systems?

These questions guide us in capturing technical input directly in the story,or epic, using a unified or modular field approach, depending on the Agile tool in use.

To make this scalable, we’ve structured a process where six types of architects—Security, Data, Technical, Data Migration, Integration, and Salesforce Solution—review stories within their respective domains. Each architect updates the story with inputs, reviews business impacts, and flags metadata impacts using standardized checklists, such as the Field Naming Convention, Custom Code Architecture Checklist, and Salesforce Config Workbook. This ensures that every downstream team member—whether admin or developer—knows exactly what metadata or custom logic to build.

How does the above process fit in with Salesforce Well Architected Framework(EAT)?

1. Easy – A Salesforce solution review will enforce solutions that reduce the dreaded click count and are easy to use, as per the core guidelines.
2. Adaptable – Data model review, Salesforce solution review, integration, and data migration impact will ensure the solution is scalable and impacts are considered as part of the solution.
3. Trusted – Security review process ensures the stories are reviewed for security impact and solutions identified with respect to permission sets, profiles, sharing rules, and other security components.

The result? Less ambiguity, tighter estimates, reduced defects, and a consistent delivery rhythm across sprints. As a Salesforce architect, I believe this shift in how we treat technical input can drastically improve story quality, reduce dependency blockers, and increase trust within cross-functional teams.

So, what does your team populate in your stories today as technical input? And what would it take to embed this kind of architectural rigor into your own Agile process? Please feel free to post your comments below or you are welcome to email me on any questions.