Integrating Moonhub with Salesforce

A talent leader reads a headline that says Salesforce bought a hiring tool, and asks for an integration by the end of the month. The picture has Moonhub on the left and Salesforce on the right. Candidate records are supposed to flow into a hiring object someone has already started to sketch. Recruiting operations is mapping fields. Legal is not in the meeting. The headline feels like a scope. It is not the record.

Stop the mapping. This was not an acquisition. Do not build a hiring connector. Do not tell anyone to integrate Moonhub into Salesforce. Those are not cautious versions of a real project. They are the project, and the project is the failure. This page exists to say that in a diagram a steering group can read, and to explain why a hiring design would be the wrong job even if the team is impatient.

What to do about any export you might still hold, and why a consultant should refuse the work, is Moonhub was not acquired, and there is nothing to migrate. The headline against the spokesperson's account is What happened to Moonhub. Stay on this page until the arrow is gone and nobody is still being told to integrate.

#What the cited page says

The sentence this page quotes, once, is the spokesperson's account to TechCrunch: "A Salesforce spokesperson told TechCrunch that Moonhub has not, in fact, been acquired (by the company’s definition of the term). Rather, Moonhub is shutting down, and only some of the company’s team, not the whole team, as MoonHub implied in its post about the news, will be joining Salesforce."

Read it as a refusal of the headline. Not acquired, by Salesforce's own account of the word. Shutting down. Some of the team joining, not the whole team, and not because a post implied otherwise. A team joining is a staffing fact about people. It is not a product moving into your org. It is not a licence. It is not a feed of candidates.

The sentence does not name a Salesforce hiring object, a screen, a connector, a daily cap, or a price. This page will not invent them. Inventing a hiring object so the sentence has somewhere to land is the integration this page forbids. You do not repair a misunderstood headline by building the thing the headline falsely announced.

Spellings in the public argument vary. The sentence itself uses more than one. Do not treat a spelling difference as a second company you might still connect. There is one story in the quotation, and the story is that the acquisition did not happen.

#The system

The system cell is empty. There is no acquired Moonhub system to put on a diagram.

A headline that uses the word "buys" will keep producing boxes. The box feels responsible, because ignoring a headline looks careless. The careful act is to quote the spokesperson and leave the box off. Careful is not a thinner arrow. Careful is no arrow.

People joining a company do not bring a system with them by default. Some employees moving is not a tenant, a connected app, or a hiring cloud. If a new colleague mentions a tool they used, that is a memory of a workplace. It is not an instruction to recreate the tool inside Salesforce. Ask what, if anything, your company already held as a customer. This source does not say that you were a customer. Do not assume a tenant in order to have something to integrate.

Salesforce may already contain recruiting data, if you chose to put it there under some other programme. That data is yours. It is not Moonhub data by another name. Do not relabel it so the integration keyword still has a home. Relabelling is how a forbidden project survives a correction. Call your objects what they are. Leave Moonhub off the labels.

There is no screen, on this source, that an admin should open. A ticket to "enable the Moonhub integration" has no switch to flip. Close the ticket with the quotation, not with a placeholder app. A placeholder will be discovered later by someone who thinks it is real.

#The object

The object cell is empty. Do not create a hiring object to receive Moonhub.

A hiring connector needs objects: a person, an application, a role, a note about a candidate. Those words are ordinary in recruiting. They are not a schema the spokesperson handed you. Building them "ready for the feed" creates personal data structures for a feed you must not start. Empty objects get sample rows. Sample rows become a demo. The demo becomes the argument that the integration is already underway, so it would be wasteful to stop. Stop before the first sample row.

If your company holds an export from a tool you used, that is a question about personal data you already have. It is not a reason to integrate Moonhub into Salesforce. Confirming whether an export exists, and closing it lawfully if it does, is the operational work on the neighbouring page. Copying it into a new hiring object is the connector, and this page tells you not to build that connector. The export does not become cleaner because it lands in Salesforce. It becomes a second copy, with a second audience, under a story that says the acquisition was real.

Do not design fields for "fit", "score", or "recommendation" so an eventual model has somewhere to write. No model was acquired. A score field created in hope is still a hiring object. Leave it out. If you already have recruiting fields for a process you run yourselves, they stay as they are. They do not need a Moonhub source to justify them, and they must not be briefed as the Moonhub integration.

#The failure

The failure is telling anyone to integrate Moonhub into Salesforce, and the hiring connector that carries out the instruction.

The instruction is sometimes loud. "We need this live before the quarter." It is sometimes soft. "Let's sketch the connector so we are ready if the deal turns out to be real." The spokesperson has already said it was not a deal, on the company's definition. Readiness for a deal that the record denies is still the project. Sketches become tickets. Tickets become sandboxes. Sandboxes become the claim that backing out would waste the sprint.

Another costume is the data-model workshop that "does not connect anything yet". The workshop produces the object. The object is the connector's destination. You have started. Say so, and stop. A workshop that only reads the spokesperson sentence, and then cancels the mapping, is the workshop you wanted.

Do not brief a vendor to build the connector and "confirm the legal point in parallel". Parallel means the build does not depend on the legal point. The legal point, on this page, is the whole scope. There is nothing to build beside it. A vendor who is comfortable starting anyway is not a careful vendor. They are billing the failure.

If a sandbox load has already happened, treat it as a mistake to unwind, not as a pilot to extend. List who can see the rows. Stop further loads. Ask the person who owns privacy whether the rows should be removed. Do not add a page layout while that question is open. A layout is how the failure becomes part of the working org.

#The diagram

A diagram that does not name the system, the object, and the failure is a poster. The poster for this story is two logos and a hiring arrow. It quotes the headline and ignores the spokesperson. Replace it.

Read the failure cell to the people who write tickets. The cell is not "sync errors" or "duplicate candidates". Those are problems a real feed might have. You do not have a feed you are allowed to start. The failure is the decision to integrate. Once that decision is refused, the other problems do not arise from this name.

No connector name, no screen, no daily cap, no price. Adding them would fill the poster back in. Three cells, two of them empty on purpose, are the architecture.

#What you write instead of a connector

The refusal, in one paragraph anyone can forward. Moonhub was not acquired. The company was shutting down. Only some of the team were joining. Do not build a hiring connector. Do not integrate Moonhub into Salesforce.

The quotation. Kept whole, so a shortened headline cannot replace it in the next meeting. Name the person who will read it out when the picture comes back.

The search. Whether your company was ever a customer, and whether any export is still in your possession. The search is not permission to load what you find. It is how you know whether you have personal data to deal with. The neighbouring page is where that duty is spelled out. This page's duty is to keep the load from being called an integration.

The staffing fact, kept separate. If people joined, they joined as employees. Their presence is not a product. Do not put their names on an architecture diagram. Do not ask them to recreate a hiring tool inside Salesforce so the old work has a home.

Out of scope. A hiring object. A connector. A sample candidate. A score. A ticket titled "enable Moonhub". A partner statement of work that still has a source system on the left.

#How the other two pages fit

This page is the refusal to integrate. The other two pages should not be used as a back door.

What happened to Moonhub holds the headline against the spokesperson's account, including who was said to be joining and who was not. Send arguments about the news there. Do not let a debate about wording end with "integrate the part that is true". No part of the sentence is a feed.

Moonhub was not acquired, and there is nothing to migrate is the operational page. Exports, if any exist, and why you do not hire a consultant to implement a product that was not bought. Use it after this diagram is accepted. If a consultant's first deliverable is a hiring connector, they have not accepted it. Do not pay for the connector as a way of being thorough.

#A week that cancels the arrow

Forward the quotation to the person who opened the ticket, the person drawing the object, and the partner if one is already in the thread. Ask each of them to reply with the connector removed, not with a revised connector. A revised connector is the same instruction in a smaller font.

Look in the sandbox for objects or rows created for this name. If you find them, stop the work and put the privacy question to the owner. Do not demo the rows while you wait. A demo is an instruction, delivered with a smile.

At the end of the week the diagram should still have an empty system and an empty object. That is success. A filled diagram is the failure, however tidy the field names look. You were not asked, by this source, to hire through Salesforce. You were told, by the record, not to treat a headline as a purchase. Act on the record.