Salesforce Practice

Consulting decides the edition, architecture and sequencing and hands over a written plan. Implementation builds that plan: configuration, custom code, migrated data and trained reps. Many engagements run both, but the decision always comes first.

That depends on where the workaround actually lives, in selling or in support, and is exactly what the consulting assessment settles. Recommending against a second cloud your team does not yet need is a normal, expected outcome.

Yes. Your admin usually knows the org's history better than anyone, and that knowledge shortens the assessment considerably. We slot around an existing partner's scope rather than duplicating it.

Consulting is a small, fixed engagement that prices whatever implementation follows it. Implementation pricing then follows the scoped process slices, with Salesforce licence costs modelled separately from delivery cost.

The first fully configured process typically lands inside a quarter once direction is agreed, because slicing by process keeps each increment small enough to finish and adopt on its own.

Customisations get catalogued during the assessment with a keep, replace or retire call on each one. New work stays inside supported extension patterns, so a seasonal release upgrade stays routine instead of becoming its own project.

Yes, and every migrated object gets a named business owner and a reconciliation report before go-live. Dirty data breaks Salesforce adoption faster than any configuration mistake, so this step is a gate, not a courtesy.

Both, and the assessment weighs them honestly against each other. A well-fitted AppExchange package usually beats custom Apex on cost and time to value, so recommending one over a build is a normal outcome, not a missed sale.