Advanced Vault Object Modelling: When to Use Object Types vs Separate Objects

Shanmugapriyan Ganesan
14 hours ago
2 min read

Introduction

One of the most critical architectural decisions in Veeva Vault is determining whether to model data variations using object types within a single object or to create separate objects entirely. This decision impacts data integrity, user experience, reporting, performance, and long-term maintainability.

Understanding the Fundamentals

Object Types

Object Types allow variations of a single object with different field sets and behaviours while maintaining a unified structure. All records share the same base object with type-specific configurations, a common lifecycle (with optional type variations), and a unified security model.

Example: Study Documents with types for Protocol, ICF, CRF, all sharing study reference and effective date, while each has type-specific workflows.

Separate Objects

Separate Objects establish completely independent entities with distinct schemas, lifecycles, relationships, security models, and API endpoints.

Example: Quality Management with separate CAPA, Deviation, Change Control, and Complaint objects, each with unique lifecycle complexity and regulatory requirements.

Usage

Infographic titled “When to Use Object Types” featuring five colored panels explaining criteria for using object types. The panels include:

Strong Conceptual Similarity (≥70% commonality) – Entities share most attributes, workflows, and relationships.

Common Relationships – Variations relate to the same parent/child objects, simplifying relationship management.

Shared Business Rules – Most business logic applies across variations with minor type-specific exceptions.

Unified Reporting – Enables cross-type analytics and dashboards while allowing type-specific filtering.

Frequent Type Changes – Records often transition between types during their lifecycle (e.g., complaint reclassified from “product quality” to “adverse event”).

Each section is displayed in a rounded rectangular card with distinct background colors (green, orange, red, yellow, and purple) and matching icons.

Alt Text:
Infographic titled “When to Use Separate Objects” showing six colored panels that describe situations where separate objects are preferable. The panels include:

Fundamentally Different Entities (<40% commonality) – Distinct business concepts with minimal overlap in attributes, workflows, or relationships.

Independent Lifecycle Management – Completely different lifecycle states, transitions, and business rules with no shared workflow steps or state meanings.

Distinct Security Requirements – Different user groups require independent access control with separate security matrices.

Performance & Scalability – High-volume scenarios (100K+ records), different retention needs, or independent query optimization requirements.

Different Integration Patterns – Entities integrate with different external systems or require distinct API behaviors and synchronization patterns.

Clear Organizational Boundaries – Different business units own and manage entities independently, requiring separate release cycles and reduced cross-team dependencies.

Each panel is displayed as a rounded rectangle with a unique background color (green, orange, yellow, red, brown/gray, and purple) and an icon representing the concept.

Decision Framework

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Type Proliferation: Creating 20+ types for minor variations. Solution: Use configurable fields or classification taxonomy.
The "Mega Object": Forcing unrelated entities into one object where most fields are unused per type. Solution: Split into separate objects.
Premature Separation: Creating separate objects before understanding commonalities, resulting in duplicate configurations. Solution: Start with types, split when complexity warrants.
Security by Type: Using object types solely for security segregation. Solution: Use role-based security with separate objects if needed.

Real-World Examples

Regulatory Submissions (Object Types ✓)

Single Submission object with types: IND, NDA, BLA, 510(k), PMA, MAA.

Rationale: Common workflow, shared relationships, cross-submission reporting critical.

Result: Unified reporting, consistent user experience.

Quality Management (Separate Objects ✓)

Separate objects: CAPA, Deviation, Change Control, Complaint.

Rationale: Different lifecycle complexities (5 vs 15+ states), distinct regulatory requirements, and different integrations.

Result: Clear ownership, optimized performance, and regulatory compliance.

Document Management (Hybrid ✓)

Separate objects by domain (Manufacturing, Quality, Clinical Docs) with types within each (SOPs, Specs, Protocols).

Rationale: Fundamentally different across domains, logical variations within.

Result: Optimal balance of flexibility and manageability.

Best Practices

Start Simple: Begin with object types when uncertain. Easier to split later than merge.
Document Decisions: Maintain architectural decision records with rationale, alternatives considered, and trade-offs.
Plan for Growth: Anticipate new types/objects, leave room for expansion, avoid hard-coded dependencies.
User Experience First: Test with actual users, optimize for common workflows, minimize configuration complexity.
Monitor and Refactor: Regularly assess performance, user feedback, and business alignment. Refactor when needed.

Key Takeaways

Object types excel for variations of the same concept with shared workflows (>70% commonality)
Separate objects suit fundamentally different entities with distinct lifecycles (<40% commonality)
Use the 4-step framework: assess commonality, evaluate complexity, consider future state, check technical constraints
Avoid type proliferation, mega objects, premature separation, and security-by-type
Document decisions and remain open to refactoring as requirements evolve

By applying these principles, you create scalable, maintainable Vault object models aligned with business objectives, supporting current operations and future growth.