Take the human out of the button click.

Conga Trigger connects generation to Salesforce automation, so a document is produced when a record meets a condition — the standard example being final paperwork generated when an opportunity is marked Closed Won. Conga Batch works from the other direction: it produces documents for many records at once from a grid-style interface, and runs can be scheduled for a future date and time, which suits statements, renewal notices and reminders. Trigger is about timing relative to an event; Batch is about volume and cadence. Many organizations use both for different processes.

Several, and they interact. Your Salesforce edition has an API request allocation and a cap on outbound emails, and Conga documents its own limits on workflow transactions over a rolling period. A design that is comfortable at fifty records can hit one of these at five thousand, which is why sizing against projected peak rather than current average matters. We deliberately do not publish specific figures here because they change — we re-verify the current published limits against Conga and Salesforce documentation at implementation time and design the headroom from those.

By narrowing the firing condition and by guarding the path explicitly. The usual cause is a condition defined on a field that also gets touched by bulk operations — a stage field updated during a migration, or a checkbox set by a nightly job — so the trigger fires legitimately, thousands of times. Fixes include conditioning on a transition rather than a value, excluding a specific integration user, gating on a control flag that imports do not set, and testing against a simulated load before go-live rather than after. This is one of the specific things we test for.

Both, in their own lanes. Salesforce automation should own the process — deciding that something should happen, updating records, routing approvals, orchestrating the surrounding steps. Conga should own the artefact — gathering data, merging it into a template, producing the file and routing it onward. The rule that matters more than either is that every event has exactly one thing responding to it. A Flow and a Conga Trigger both watching the same field change is the most common way to end up producing a document twice.

Only if you design reconciliation in, which is the single most-skipped part of automating document runs. The design needs three things: activity logging so each produced document is recorded against its source record, a reconciliation step comparing how many records were expected to qualify against how many actually produced output, and alerting that reaches a named person rather than a log file. Without the middle one a partial failure is invisible — four hundred statements expected, three hundred and eighty-two produced, and nothing anywhere says so.

Yes. A process nobody has mapped should not be automated, because automation makes the existing error rate faster and much less visible — the person who used to notice the anomaly is no longer in the loop. Low-volume work requiring genuine judgement is usually better left as a button with background mode switched on, which removes the inconsistency without removing the decision. And anything where producing the wrong document has serious consequences deserves a person in the loop until the process has proven itself. We would rather recommend a button than automate something that is not ready.