<aside> <img src="/icons/info-alternate_gray.svg" alt="/icons/info-alternate_gray.svg" width="40px" />
This case study uses a real-world HubSpot–Salesforce integration to demonstrate a framework for organising Salesforce diagrams and solution architecture documentation. The approach combines both system-centric and process-centric perspectives, to tailor to different stakeholders. I’ve referenced ****my metadata dictionary template which now includes a Systems Interactions Database that creates a single source of truth for integration specifications and their related business processes.
Built on the Salesforce Well-Architected framework, the case study includes the **following Salesforce Diagrams Components:
</aside>
The latest Salesforce Architect Report (2025) from SalesforceBen positions diagramming as the most critical skill for solution architects, a recognition that visual communication has become fundamental to our practice. Yet, my experience has been that most companies and Salesforce teams suffer from the same documentation challenges: technically accurate diagrams that fail to serve their primary purpose of enabling decision-making and ends up becoming outdated.
SF Ben Salesforce Architect Survey Results 2025: Download Now! | Salesforce Ben
The Salesforce Well-Architected Framework provides essential foundational guidance on diagram types: Capability Maps, System Landscapes, Solution Architectures, and Interaction Flows. However, it provides no guidance in three critical components that distinguish between documentation that exists versus documentation that is used:
Salesforce Architects | How to Build Salesforce Diagrams
This case study presents a metadata-(dictionary) driven organisational framework that addresses these gaps while preserving the Well-Architected Foundation's conceptual strengths.
Most enterprise documentation follows usually a system-centric approach (organising around technical components) at the expense of a process-centric approach (organising around business workflows). This creates an artificial separation that can force architects to optimise for technical audiences over business stakeholders.
The Well-Architected Framework's diagram repository demonstrates this limitation. While technically comprehensive, the examples from their diagram repository favour system-centric perspectives, making them less accessible to business stakeholders who ultimately are those making architectural decisions (such as technology providers or business rules definition).
Could the solution lies not in choosing between framework, but in designing documentation architectures that serve both perspectives simultaneously? This would require:
<aside> <img src="/icons/info-alternate_gray.svg" alt="/icons/info-alternate_gray.svg" width="40px" />
This case study analyses a real-world scenario adapted for clarity and instructional value.
</aside>
<aside> 🔎
The system capability map below highlights a critical architectural component: HubSpot appears across multiple capabilities and business units, indicating its evolution from departmental tool to cross-company strategic application.
This illustrates the evolution of marketing processes into a pillar of modern RevOps processes. As a result, marketing automation platforms like HubSpot now serves as integration hubs rather than isolated functional tools.
</aside>