Salesforce can run your entire revenue operation — sales, service, marketing, and the integrations between them. In enterprise organizations, it usually does. And that is exactly where the problems start: years of custom objects, flows, and automations built by different teams, data quality that erodes with every import, and a platform so customized that nobody can explain how it works end to end.
The symptoms are familiar to any CIO who owns a Salesforce org. Reports that disagree. Users who keep their own spreadsheets because they do not trust the system. Admins who are afraid to change anything because nobody knows what will break. Renewal conversations where the vendor's answer is more licenses, and the business's question is why the platform they already pay for is not delivering. None of this means Salesforce was the wrong choice. It means the platform outgrew the governance around it — which is what happens to every enterprise system that succeeds.
There is a second, quieter cost. When the CRM cannot be trusted, every team builds its own workaround: marketing keeps its own lists, finance keeps its own revenue numbers, service keeps its own case history. The organization pays for one system of record and operates on five. Decisions slow down, forecasts lose credibility, and the leadership conversation becomes an argument about whose numbers are right instead of what to do about them.
HarjTech helps enterprise organizations get Salesforce under control and get value out of it. We assess the org, clean up what is broken, integrate it with the Microsoft stack and the rest of your systems, install the governance that keeps it clean, and advise on the roadmap — so Salesforce becomes a system your teams trust and your leadership can rely on. The work is phased, evidence-based, and accountable: you see what we find, agree on what to fix first, and measure whether it worked.
Yes. The assessment includes a license usage analysis: who holds which license, who actually uses the platform, and where downgrades or reassignments are justified. Unused or underused licenses are one of the most common findings in enterprise orgs — and the savings are often substantial.
Licensing recommendations are documented with the reasoning behind them, so the model survives the next budget review — and the governance we install keeps the waste from returning.
Value is verified, not asserted. Usage reviews produce a documented baseline, and recommendations show the reasoning and the expected effect. After implementation, we review whether the savings or improvements materialized — and if they did not, we say so and adjust. That measurement discipline is what turns a one-time cleanup into lasting value.
Engagements are led by HarjTech's principal consultant, and delivery is performed by senior consultants working under HarjTech's accountability. Where specialist capacity is needed, we bring in vetted specialists — but HarjTech remains the prime: one firm owns the outcome, end to end, and one point of accountability for you.
The people in your scoping call are the people who do the work. No bait-and-switch staffing, and no layers of account management between you and the people solving the problem.
Senior consultants do the work under HarjTech's accountability. Where specialist capacity is needed, specialists are vetted, briefed, and managed by HarjTech — you never manage a bench of subcontractors yourself. Escalation goes to the principal consultant, and regular check-ins keep you informed on progress, risks, and decisions needed from your side.
Both. Diagnostics and assessments are fixed-scope — you know the deliverables and timeline before we start. Larger programs are fixed-scope with phased deliverables, so budget never drifts silently. Ongoing support runs on a defined monthly arrangement.
Investment is confirmed on the scoping call, after we understand what you actually need. We do not publish prices, because the same engagement costs different amounts depending on org size and complexity — and we would rather quote honestly than advertise a number that does not apply to you.
A fixed-scope proposal spells out deliverables, timeline, and investment before you commit. If the scope needs to change mid-engagement, we agree the change in writing first — no surprise invoices, no silent scope creep. Phased delivery means you can stop after any phase with a complete, usable deliverable and decide whether to continue.
Distrust in reporting is almost never a dashboard problem — it is a governance problem. Competing definitions, uncertified reports, and data nobody validated produce numbers that disagree. The fix is a governed data model, defined metrics, validation rules, and a small set of reports built around the decisions leadership actually makes.
We rebuild reporting on cleaned, validated data — so the numbers executives see are numbers they can defend. Trust returns when the numbers agree, month after month, and when there is a clear owner for each metric.
The work is sequenced by business impact: the fixes that unblock reporting, closes, or operations come first, and the deeper structural work follows. You will see progress in weeks, not quarters, and every phase ends with evidence — cleaner data, reconciled reports, and a measurable reduction in manual workarounds. Success is not declared by us; it is visible in the numbers your team uses every day.
Ongoing support covers day-to-day administration, change control, monitoring, user support coordination, and roadmap stewardship. The governance routines — access reviews, data quality checks, release discipline — run on cadence, not on memory.
This is how the gains from a cleanup stop decaying: the operating model keeps running whether or not your internal team has bandwidth that week. You get senior hands on the platform and a regular reporting rhythm that keeps leadership informed.
Support runs on a defined rhythm: monthly reporting on what was done, what was found, and what is next; quarterly reviews of the roadmap and priorities; and an annual review of the platform's health and direction. You can scale support up or down as your needs change, and you can exit with full documentation of everything we built and configured.
Assessments run two to three weeks. Cleanup and governance programs run four to eight weeks depending on org size. Integration projects are scoped by the systems involved. Ongoing support is a monthly arrangement.
Every proposal states the timeline explicitly before you commit — and engagements are phased, so you can stop after any phase with a complete, usable deliverable. You are never locked into an open-ended program with no exit points.
Timelines depend on environment size, data quality, and how quickly your team can provide access and decisions. We confirm the timeline in the proposal and keep it honest: if something slips, you hear about it early with options, not late with excuses. Client-side delays — access, approvals, data — are the most common cause of slippage, and we flag them in week one so they can be planned around.
You get the same operating model — prime accountability, senior-led delivery, fixed-scope proposals — without the Big Four rate card or the vendor's incentive to sell you more of their own product. HarjTech is platform-agnostic in its advice: if the right answer is fewer licenses, a simpler configuration, or a different integration pattern, that is what we will recommend.
Engagements are led at the principal level, and the people in your scoping call are the people who do the work. You are not handed off to a junior team after the pitch. If you want a partner who will tell you when the vendor's recommendation is not in your interest, book a scoping call.
Prime accountability means one firm owns the outcome. You have one point of contact, one plan, and one firm answerable for the result — no finger-pointing between vendors. If something goes wrong, HarjTech fixes it; we do not hand you a ticket number and a different vendor's phone number. That accountability is the difference between a provider and a partner, and it is why clients stay after the first engagement.
A working session, not a sales pitch. We map your current Salesforce org and the outcome you are buying, identify the fastest path to it, and give you a clear point of view on your situation — whether or not we work together.
You will leave with a sharper understanding of your own org: what is actually broken, what is just noise, and what the first move should be. If there is a fit, a fixed-scope proposal follows within days. If there is not, we will tell you that too, and point you in a better direction where we can.
To get the most from the call, bring anyone who owns the platform day to day and anyone who signs off on budget. Come with your biggest frustration and your desired outcome — you do not need a formal requirements document. Within days of the call you will have a fixed-scope proposal with deliverables, timeline, and investment, so you can decide with real numbers in front of you.