×
Joint delivery model and scope alignment across all four active workstreams. Designed for co-design — bring your challenges, questions, and alternatives.
Four proposals are in active negotiation — all targeting the same Salesforce org, the same UDL team, and the same underlying platform. The question isn't just what gets built. It's finding the right balance between delivery approach, scope sequencing, team capacity, and a commercial model that gives UDL genuine cost confidence. This session is about reaching that balance together — before delivery begins, not after the first conflict surfaces.
Priority matrix · Drip feed / in-day conflict · Idle time automation · Construction black hole · Status errors
Tender intake · Bid lifecycle · Relationship tracking · SharePoint · Stage-based tasks · Approvals · Opp→Job handover
Asset model · Crew-based execution · Service territories · Maintenance Plan architecture · LWC interface
Phase 1: Contractor portal + FSL · Phase 2: Claims & Retention framework · Phase 3: Direct/Recurring billing
LOEs have exceeded original expectations. Matt's core need: a commercial model that gives UDL confidence in cost control — sprint-based or capped T&M — without constraining delivery velocity.
Three workstreams modify Work Orders simultaneously. Two build on Experience Cloud. One Salesforce Admin supports all four. These aren't acknowledged in the current LOE structure — but they will show up in delivery.
Coordinated delivery with a shared backlog, shared governance cadence, and explicit UDL capacity commitments will protect timelines — not constrain them. The goal is a conveyor belt, not a traffic jam.
Each workstream is broken into epic-level features, then into the capability stories each epic delivers. Where epics share infrastructure or create dependency risks across workstreams, they are flagged. Use this to prioritise, sequence, and align before build begins.
Phase 1 (Contractor Portal) and Phase 2 (Claims Certifier Portal) both build on Experience Cloud. Designing the EC architecture once — with extensibility in mind — saves 3–5 development days and eliminates Phase 2 rework risk.
These are not "nice to align" moments — they are active delivery risks. Independent LOEs will configure the same objects differently, bottleneck the same admin, and rebuild shared infrastructure twice. The matrix below maps where the risks and opportunities sit across all four workstreams.
| Shared Resource / Object | S&O | BD | Estate Maint. | AR/AP | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🔴 Angelica (Salesforce Admin) | ● | ● | ● | ● | CRITICAL — single point of failure across all 4 tracks. Must cap & protect. |
| 🔴 Work Order / Service Appointment | ● | — | ● | ● | 3 teams modifying WO/SA simultaneously → field conflicts, flow clashes. Needs Day 1 alignment session. |
| 🟡 FSL Scheduling Engine (RSO) | ● | — | ● | — | S&O corrects how engine runs; EM corrects data going in. Must be sequenced or run as co-designed track. |
| 🟢 Experience Cloud Platform | — | — | — | ●● | AR/AP Ph1 + Ph2 both need EC. Design once, extend for Phase 2. Saves 3–5 dev days. |
| 🟡 Flosum Deployment Pipeline | ● | ● | ● | ● | 4 tracks, 1 pipeline, 1 Release Manager. Unified fortnightly cadence prevents metadata conflicts. |
| 🟢 Managed Service Transition | ● | ● | ● | ● | All 4 LOEs transition to Managed Service. Quarterly "sprint into support" ceremony = clean handover rhythm. |
The crossover cards above describe platform risks. This table goes one level deeper — it names the specific scope items from each LOE that share configuration, objects, or infrastructure, and should be designed together in Sprint 0 to avoid duplication or conflict during build. Items listed here should be reviewed at the Data Model Alignment session before Sprint 1 begins.
These risks were identified through the discovery phase and crossover analysis. Each carries a likelihood and impact rating. Use this page to confirm which risks are accepted, which need active mitigation, and who owns each one.
What: Angelica Tiolengco (Salesforce Administrator) is the only UDL team member with hands-on Salesforce configuration capability. All four workstreams require her involvement for data remediation, deployment validation, and environment management.
Why it matters: If Angelica is unavailable — due to leave, illness, competing demands, or over-allocation — all four workstreams stall simultaneously. No redundancy exists in the current team model.
Recommended mitigation: Hard cap of 40% total availability across all tracks. Name at least two backup delegates before kickoff — one for FSL workstreams, one for CRM workstreams. Consider uplifting a second UDL admin.
What: Option B (Unified Delivery) requires a UDL Product Owner at ~50% capacity to own the program backlog, attend Phase Planning, and make prioritisation decisions across all workstreams. No person is confirmed for this role.
Why it matters: Without a dedicated PO, sprint planning cannot proceed effectively. Arcturious will face conflicting or absent direction. Decision-making will default to Michael Diamond, which is unsustainable and reduces UDL's ownership of outcomes.
Recommended mitigation: Confirm the UDL Product Owner by end of Sprint 0. If Tanya is the nominee, formally carve out 50% of her time and name her as PO in the engagement agreement.
What: The Financial Architecture workstream (AR/AP) has a scope document but no Letter of Engagement. Timeline, effort, and team allocation for this workstream are entirely unconfirmed.
Why it matters: If AR/AP launches mid-program without adequate team capacity, it will create resource contention with BD, S&O, and EM. It may also conflict with the contractor enablement work at the Work Order level.
Recommended mitigation: AR/AP Phase 1 LOE to be drafted within 1 week of this workshop. Catherine Labbe to lead. Do not allow AR/AP to begin until the LOE is confirmed and sequenced against Phase 1.
What: BD (contractor enablement / AR/AP), S&O (scheduling), and EM (maintenance plans) all generate and consume Work Orders. Any structural changes made in one workstream to Work Order or Service Appointment objects could break another.
Recommended mitigation: Data Model Alignment session in Sprint 0 with Bivush (Architect) and Angelica present. Agree on shared object ownership before any workstream begins building.
What: All four workstreams share a single Flosum pipeline, managed by Mark (UDL Release Manager). When multiple workstreams are deploying simultaneously, conflicts between metadata packages are likely — especially for shared objects like Work Orders, Service Appointments, and Opportunity.
Recommended mitigation: Agree a deployment calendar as part of Sprint 0. Mark to establish separate metadata branches per workstream. Arcturious to align package structure before first sprint.
What: Both the Scheduling & Optimisation and Estate Maintenance workstreams configure the FSL scheduling engine — policies, territories, crews, and optimisation rules. Without architectural coordination, their configurations will conflict and produce unpredictable dispatch behaviour.
Recommended mitigation: Bivush (System Architect) to chair a cross-workstream FSL design session in Sprint 0. Establish which scheduling policies apply to which service territories, and ensure EM changes don't affect Council or Construction scheduling.
What: Four simultaneous workstreams across a single Salesforce org create four separate channels where scope requests can emerge. Without rigorous change control, the cumulative impact of small additions across all tracks will exceed capacity.
Recommended mitigation: Unified backlog with weekly triage. Simon Hunt (Arcturious Commercials) to ensure all changes that extend beyond LOE are formally logged and approved before work begins.
What: Estate Maintenance assets require structural remediation (renaming, deactivating, adding geolocation data, linking to Job Cost Codes). The volume of assets requiring correction is not yet fully quantified.
Recommended mitigation: Asset audit in Sprint 0. Agree pilot estates before Week 2 build begins. UDL (Angelica + Adam) to own production data changes; Arcturious provides remediation checklist and validation support.
What: Several Salesforce FSL behaviours are not well-documented or have known bugs — including Commit Mode, drip feed race conditions, and in-day optimisation edge cases. Some limitations may require workarounds rather than native solutions.
Recommended mitigation: Arcturious to document known platform constraints early. Bivush to maintain a platform risk log. Where Salesforce behaviour cannot be fixed, agree on risk acceptance or supportable workarounds before build begins.
These assumptions are drawn from the three issued Letters of Engagement and the broader program design. Where an assumption proves invalid, scope, timeline, or cost may be impacted. Please flag any that require correction before the program begins.
Arcturious assumes Angelica Tiolengco will be available across all four workstreams for: data remediation execution, deployment validation, UAT support, and environment management. Her availability is assumed at a max 40% combined capacity.
Mark (UDL) is responsible for all deployments across Dev, UAT, and Production environments. UDL retains ownership of all production deployments. Arcturious will prepare and validate packages but does not execute production releases.
A UDL Product Owner is required to own the unified backlog, attend Phase Planning and showcases, and make timely prioritisation decisions. We have assumed Tanya Anglin in this role, pending confirmation.
UDL owns all production releases. Arcturious prepares, documents, and validates packages in Dev and UAT. This applies to all four workstreams.
Bulk historical data migration, retroactive restructuring, and large-scale data correction are excluded from all Letters of Engagement. UDL owns data quality and any bulk data activities. Arcturious provides remediation guidance and validation support only.
The EM engagement explicitly preserves the JCS. No integration between JCS and Salesforce is included in any LOE. If UDL decides to integrate JCS during the program, this will require a formal scope change and separate commercial agreement.
The program assumes current Salesforce and FSL licensing supports all features within scope. Features that require additional licensing (e.g. Einstein Lead Scoring, Sales Engagement / Cadences, Experience Cloud Contractor licences) are flagged as conditional in the relevant LOEs and are not assumed to be available.
Brightly Assetic, external ERP systems, and other third-party platforms are not within scope for any workstream unless explicitly stated. SharePoint integration is limited to URL-based association via Files Connect. Any deeper integration requires a separate scope and commercial agreement.
All travel — flights, accommodation, and daily meal allowances — will be covered by UDL, pre-approved before any travel is booked. This applies across all four LOEs.
Any change to agreed scope — additions, removals, or modifications — must be documented via change request before work begins. This protects both parties. Informal scope expansion is the leading cause of commercial disputes in delivery engagements.
One shared backlog, one governance cadence, one delivery team rhythm. Option B gives UDL budget predictability, handles all crossover risks through shared governance, and delivers continuous value every sprint — without requiring the additional coordination overhead of a fully parallelised model.
Each engagement runs as an independent project · No shared governance · 16–22+ weeks total
Each LOE proceeds independently with its own timeline, team, and commercial structure. Work begins on each engagement as it is signed, without a coordinated program view. Dependencies between workstreams are managed reactively rather than by design.
One shared backlog · One team rhythm · Phase Planning every 8 weeks · Continuous delivery
All four workstreams are governed through a single unified backlog and 8-week Program Increment (Phase) cadence. Work flows through a continuous delivery pipeline — the "conveyor belt" — where each phase overlaps intentionally so that while one increment is in build, the next is in requirements, and the previous is being tested.
| Phase | Sprint 1 Wk 1–2 |
Sprint 2 Wk 3–4 |
Sprint 3 Wk 5–6 |
Sprint 4 Wk 7–8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Requirements | Lock Sprint 1 stories | Lock Sprint 2 stories | Lock Sprint 3 stories | Phase Review prep |
| Build | Sprint 1 build | Sprint 2 build | Sprint 3 build | Sprint 4 build |
| User Verification | — | Sprint 1 showcase | Sprint 2 showcase | Sprint 3 showcase |
| UAT (UDL-led) | — | — | Sprint 1+2 UAT | Sprint 3+4 UAT |
| Go-Live | — | — | Incremental if ready | Full Phase go-live + Phase Review |
Two dedicated tracks · Higher throughput · Requires proven team rhythm and mature backlog discipline
Once the program has established a proven sprint rhythm (typically from Phase 3 onward), running two parallel tracks allows FSL and CRM workstreams to accelerate independently. This model delivers the highest throughput but requires dedicated track leads, a mature backlog, and a well-rehearsed UDL team who can support two simultaneous showcase cycles.
Option C becomes the natural evolution once: (a) Phase 1 is complete and the team rhythm is proven, (b) a dedicated UDL Product Owner is confirmed and operational, and (c) the AR/AP Phase 1 LOE is signed. At that point, tracks can diverge naturally from the unified backlog without governance risk.
Rather than T&M per LOE, we recommend a fixed sprint budget per fortnight. The team delivers the highest-priority backlog items within that budget. New requests go into the backlog — they don't expand the current sprint. UDL gets a predictable monthly cost line and program-level budget governance at each Phase Review.
| Model | How It Works | Budget Predictability | Fit for This Program |
|---|---|---|---|
| T&M per LOE (Current) | Each engagement billed independently against LOE estimate | Medium — LOEs can expand through change control | Doesn't provide program-level cost visibility |
| Sprint Budget ⭐ | Fortnightly sprint budget (agreed at Phase Planning based on active team composition). Scope adjusted via backlog, not change requests | High — predictable monthly cost | Best fit for Option B |
| Capped T&M per Phase | T&M within an 8-week ceiling. Ceiling increase requires formal sign-off | High — hard ceiling per Phase | Strong alternative if LOE structure preferred |
Program-discounted rates, sprint team models, and Sprint 0 setup investment — designed so UDL can budget with confidence across a continuous engagement.
| Role | Standard List rate |
Per-LOE Rate Single engagement |
Program Rate Continuous multi-workstream |
Saving vs Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD & Architecture & Governance | $3,500/day | Invested | Invested | 100% |
| Engagement Manager & Lead BA | $2,800/day | $2,000/day | $1,800/day | 36% |
| Principal Architect (Bivush Rizal) | $1,500/day | $1,300/day | $1,200/day | 20% |
| Salesforce Functional Consultant & Developer | $1,500/day | $1,300/day | $1,200/day | 20% |
| Salesforce Offshore Specialist | $1,100/day | $900/day | $850/day | 23% |
A sprint is a 2-week delivery cycle. The team model selected can flex between sprints based on phase intensity and backlog demand — allowing UDL to scale up during high-complexity phases and lean down during stabilisation or testing cycles.
Sprint 0 is a real investment of time and effort from both sides. Rather than treating it as a free precursor, Arcturious proposes a shared commercial model — setup, onboarding, data alignment, and architectural governance are not zero-cost activities.
Each person has a defined primary role, a set of core accountabilities, and a protected weekly time commitment. These commitments are the minimum required for the program to function as designed. Where commitments cannot be met, they must be discussed and re-allocated — not absorbed silently.
| Person | 1. Req Confirm | 2. HLD | 3. Story Design | 4. Build | 5. User Verify | 6. UAT | 7. Train + Go-Live |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UDL Product Owner | R/A | C | C | — | A | A | A |
| Engagement Manager (Arcturious) | R | R/A | C | — | R/A | C | R/A |
| FSL Senior Consultant | C | R/A | R/A | C | C | C | C |
| Salesforce Developer | — | C | C | R/A | I | R | — |
| Angelica (UDL Admin) | C | C | — | I | C | R/A | C |
| UDL Champions | C | — | — | — | R/A | C | I |
| Release Manager (UDL) | — | — | — | C | — | — | R/A |
Arcturious operates as an AI-first consultancy. That means AI is woven into how we plan, build, test, document, and communicate — not bolted on as a future add-on. The tools below are active across our current engagements, not aspirational.
Sprint 0 includes a 2-hour AI enablement session covering: what AI capabilities are active in UDL's current Salesforce Foundations licensing, where Agentforce can be turned on immediately vs. where it requires additional data modelling, and what UDL's team needs to do to govern and operate AI-assisted features. This is not a sales pitch — it's a readiness calibration.
The program spans approximately 32 active delivery weeks across 3 delivery phases, preceded by a 2-week Sprint 0 setup period. Workstreams are sequenced deliberately — not all run simultaneously — to protect shared admin capacity, respect Field Service platform dependencies, and ensure each workstream gets the focused UDL participation it needs to succeed.
All phases use 8-week sprints but resource mix and intensity varies by the nature of work:
All figures are estimates at program rates. Actual spend will vary based on scope confirmation and sprint velocity. A 15–20% contingency is recommended.
No delivery sprint should start without the team being fully onboarded, environments provisioned, the backlog written and groomed, access granted, and key architectural questions pre-answered. Sprint 0 is the investment that means Sprint 1 starts at full pace — not at half speed while chasing access credentials or rewriting stories from scratch. It also allows the AR/AP scope and Letter of Engagement to be drafted before Phase 1 begins, so there is no overlap between scoping and live delivery.
| Program Phase | Active Workstreams | Duration | Estimated Investment | Key Milestone |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sprint 0 · Wks −2 to 0 | Setup, backlog, environments, data model alignment, AR/AP scoping | ~$15k UDL + ~$7.5k Arcturious Shared setup investment. Full program value ~$22,500. Credited toward Phase 1 on sign-off. |
🔑 Ready to deliver from Day 1 | |
| Phase 1 · Wks 1–8 | Scheduling & OptimisationBusiness DevelopmentEstate Maintenance (start)AR/AP Ph1 (start) | 8 weeks | ~$77k Scheduling & Optimisation $18.9k (signed) + Business Development $35k + Estate Maintenance $23k. Note: AR/AP Phase 1 costs are additional, pending Letter of Engagement — not included in this $77k estimate. |
✓ Scheduling & Optimisation go-live · AR/AP Letter of Engagement signed |
| Phase 2 · Wks 9–16 | Business Development (complete)Estate Maintenance (complete)AR/AP Phase 1 (complete) | 8 weeks | ~$82k Business Development $30k + Estate Maintenance $22k + AR/AP Phase 1 $30k |
✓ Business Development go-live · ✓ Estate Maintenance go-live · ✓ AR/AP Phase 1 go-live |
| Phase 3 · Wks 17–24 | AR/AP Phase 2 — ClaimsAR/AP Phase 3 — Billing | 8 weeks | ~$75k est. Claims ~$55k + Billing optimisation ~$20k (to be confirmed at Letter of Engagement) |
✓ Claims framework live · ✓ Billing optimised |
| Total Program | ~24 weeks active delivery · ~32 weeks total program window | ~$234k $129k signed Letters of Engagement + ~$105k AR/AP to be confirmed |
Full Salesforce platform modernised and integrated | |
A structured 3-week cycle to test ideas fast, validate value, and feed proven concepts into the delivery stream — without disrupting live program delivery.
Every delivery program generates ideas that are adjacent to scope — AI enhancements, process automation, integration shortcuts, smarter UX. Without a home for these ideas, they either get forced into the current sprint (disrupting delivery) or land in a backlog that nobody acts on. The Innovation Sprint creates a dedicated, low-risk channel to explore, build, and gate these ideas — separately from live delivery but connected to it.
| Role | Days | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Engagement Manager | 3d | $5,400 |
| Functional Consultant | 6d | $7,200 |
| Offshore Specialist | 9d | $7,650 |
As the program grows beyond individual workstreams, a lightweight version of the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) provides the governance structure to coordinate multiple teams, manage dependencies, and deliver predictable value without losing pace.
SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework) is a set of practices and principles for scaling agile delivery across multiple teams working on a shared platform or product. It was designed to answer a question that every growing digital program faces: how do we keep moving fast when there are more teams, more dependencies, and more stakeholders?
At its core, SAFe organises delivery into Program Increments (PIs) — typically 8–12 week cycles where teams commit to a set of outcomes together, work in coordinated sprints, and then inspect, adapt, and re-plan.
For UDL and Arcturious, SAFe doesn't mean hiring an army of agile coaches or building a bureaucratic planning machine. It means applying three key practices: PI Planning, Agile Release Trains, and Inspect & Adapt — enough structure to coordinate without slowing down.
| SAFe Role | Person | Org | What They Own in This Program |
|---|---|---|---|
| Release Train Engineer (RTE) | Michael Diamond | Arcturious | Program-level facilitation. Runs PI Planning and Inspect & Adapt. Cross-stream dependency management. Removes blockers. Escalation authority. |
| System Architect | Bivush Rizal | Arcturious | Salesforce Field Service architecture integrity across S&O and EM. Owns the architectural runway. Prevents conflicting configuration. Technical review authority. |
| Program Sponsor | Matthew Hughes | UDL — CIO | Executive sponsor. Budget authority. Strategic alignment decisions. Phase Review sign-off. Attends quarterly PI Planning and Phase Reviews. |
| Engagement & Lead BA | Catherine Labbe | Arcturious | Client-facing delivery lead for BD and AR/AP. Requirements, story writing, sprint facilitation, stakeholder communications, training delivery. |
| Release Manager | Mark [surname TBC] | UDL | Owns all Flosum deployments across Dev, UAT, and Production. Environment management. Deployment governance and metadata integrity. |
| Arcturious Commercials | Simon Hunt | Arcturious | Commercial oversight. Change control review. Invoicing and engagement governance. Ensures scope and commercial model stay aligned. |
| Product Owner (UDL) | Tanya Anglin | UDL — Technical Lead | UDL-side backlog ownership. Prioritisation decisions. UAT coordination and sign-off. Cross-stream UDL stakeholder alignment. Sprint showcase attendance. |
This is not a status update. It's a working session to make 9 specific decisions that unlock the program. Each decision has a recommended position. Come prepared to disagree, refine, or confirm — but leave with a decision.
We're recommending Option B (Unified Delivery Model) because the four workstreams share critical dependencies — Angelica's time, the Work Order data model, the FSL scheduling engine, and the Flosum pipeline — that make parallel independent delivery high-risk. A unified model protects these shared resources, eliminates the risk of conflicting configuration, and ensures the team operates at full context across all streams. This approach also directly addresses the 8 crossover risks identified in the analysis.
Option B cannot function without a UDL Product Owner who owns the unified backlog, attends Phase Planning, and makes prioritisation decisions. This is the most critical gap in the current model.
The single most critical delivery risk. We must agree a hard cap and name backup delegates before any LOE commences — not after the first conflict occurs.
Moving from T&M per LOE to Sprint Budget gives UDL a predictable monthly line item. We need to agree the budget ceiling per sprint, the approval process for Phase-level budget, and what happens if the team consistently underspends (backlog grows, not scope creep).
No LOE exists for the Financial Architecture workstream. Phase 1 (Contractor Enablement) is the logical next scope to price. Catherine can have a draft LOE ready within one week of this session.
Before any WO/SA configuration begins, we need a 2-hour Data Model Alignment session with all tech leads. Phase Planning must be scheduled for Week 1 with the confirmed PO present.
Bivush Rizal has been proposed as Principal Architect — hands-on FSL architecture and LWC development across S&O and EM workstreams. This is a named resource commitment at $1,300/day (program rate). For the Data Model Alignment session and ongoing architectural governance to work, we need Bivush confirmed as the named FSL architect before Sprint 0 begins.
Nine program risks have been identified on the Risks page. Before the program commences, each critical risk (R1–R3) requires a named owner and agreed mitigation. This is not optional — unowned risks become delivery surprises.
Ten working assumptions underpin the program commercial model and delivery plan. If any are invalid, scope and cost will be impacted. The Assumptions page in this document allows you to mark each one as Confirmed, Invalid, or Partial — please review before this session ends.
Your name helps Michael know whose feedback is whose. Any opening thoughts before the session? You can also leave these blank.
Vote on each of the 6 workshop decisions.
Your feedback across all cards and decisions, grouped by section.
✓ All votes and notes are saved to Netlify — Michael can see everyone's feedback in the dashboard.