Services
Fewer systems, connected properly.
Most integration problems start as simplification problems. We reduce the number of moving parts first, then connect what is left properly.
Symptoms, not specifications
Where this usually starts
The symptoms are almost always operational before they are technical.
- The same customer exists in three systems, under three spellings.
- Somebody exports a spreadsheet every Monday so another system has last week's numbers.
- A feed failed silently, and a customer told you before your monitoring did.
- You are paying for a platform that two people log into.
- The integration was built by a contractor who has left, and there is no documentation.
- Two reports disagree, and the fix is a meeting rather than a lookup.
Where we help
What this covers
Integration architecture
REST and event-driven patterns, middleware selection, error handling and replay, and monitoring that tells you when a feed stops rather than when a customer complains.
System rationalisation
Mapping what you run, what overlaps, what nobody uses, and what can be safely decommissioned. Legacy platform decommissioning is work we do regularly, including the unglamorous part: proving the data is safe somewhere else first.
Process simplification
The manual bridge between two systems is usually the actual problem. We remove the step rather than automate it. An automated version of an unnecessary process is still an unnecessary process, now harder to change.
Source of truth and matching
Deciding which system owns which field, and what happens when two of them disagree. Most 'integration' failures are really unresolved ownership questions surfacing at speed.
Data migration
Mapped, validated, reconciled and reversible. You get a reconciliation report proving what landed, not an assurance that it went fine.
Failure handling and monitoring
Retries, dead-letter queues, replay and alerting that names the feed and the record that failed. An integration that fails loudly is worth more than one that usually works.
Why we reduce before we connect
Every connection is something that can break at 2am.
Six systems wired directly to one another is fifteen connections, each with its own credentials, retry behaviour and failure mode. The same six through one integration layer is six, with one place to look when something stops. This is the whole argument for simplifying before integrating.
Before we connect anything, we try to remove it
Rationalisation is not a cost-cutting exercise dressed up as architecture. Every platform you retire is a licence, an integration, a set of credentials, an access review and a support path that stops existing.
Systems that overlap
Two platforms doing seventy per cent of the same job, each with its own champion. We compare them on what your process actually needs, not on feature lists.
Systems nobody uses
Licence counts against real login data. The gap is often the easiest money on the table and the least contested decision in the programme.
Reports that exist out of distrust
A spreadsheet maintained in parallel because someone does not believe the system. Fix the trust problem and the spreadsheet retires itself.
Steps that only bridge two systems
Work that exists purely because system A cannot talk to system B. This is the category we most want to delete rather than automate.
CRM and customer platforms
A CRM programme fails on adoption far more often than on configuration. We design the pipeline around how your team already sells and serve, then automate the admin that was making them avoid the system.
HubSpot
A core capability: implementation, pipeline architecture, lifecycle stages, workflow automation, custom objects and reporting, plus the marketing and service hubs where they earn their licence.
Salesforce and Zoho
Implementation, migration and pipeline design. We recommend the platform that fits your stack, budget and risk appetite, and we will tell you when the one you already own is enough.
Migration off a CRM you no longer trust
Field-level mapping, de-duplication and matching rules agreed with you, then a reconciled cutover with the old system readable until you are confident.
Adoption, not just deployment
Role-based training, a pipeline your team can explain, and the reporting your managers asked for. A CRM nobody updates is a very expensive contact list.
Every integration you add is a thing that can break at 2am. We build fewer of them, and we build them to tell you when they've failed.
On your side of the table
What you actually receive
Most of this outlives the project. The map and the field-level decisions are what stop the next integration starting from scratch.
- A current-state map: systems, feeds, owners and the manual steps between them
- A rationalisation shortlist, with what can go and what retiring it saves
- Integration designs with retry, replay and error handling specified up front
- Field-level data mapping with the source-of-truth decision recorded per field
- Reconciliation reports proving what landed after every migration
- Alerting that names the feed, the record and the failure, routed to a real person
- Documentation written for whoever holds this after us
Delivery lifecycle
How an engagement runs
Map
What you run, what talks to what, and where a person is currently acting as the integration.
Reduce
Retire, merge or decommission what we can before building anything new to connect it.
Connect
Build the remaining integrations with error handling, replay and monitoring from day one.
Prove
Reconcile against source, hand over documentation, and agree a named support path.
Realistic timelines
A system and integration map takes two to three weeks and is useful on its own. CRM implementations and integration programmes run as milestones with acceptance criteria at each stage, commonly eight to sixteen weeks. The variable that moves the estimate is almost always data quality rather than technical complexity.
Frequently asked
Questions buyers actually ask
How long does a HubSpot implementation take?
It depends on pipeline complexity and data quality, but most implementations run as a milestone-based engagement: discovery and architecture first, then phased rollout with acceptance criteria at each stage rather than a single big-bang cutover.
Do you only work with HubSpot?
No. We implement HubSpot, Salesforce and Zoho, and recommend whichever fits your stack, budget and risk appetite. HubSpot is a core capability, not the only one.
Can you migrate us off a legacy CRM or platform we no longer trust?
Yes. Data migration is mapped, validated, reconciled and reversible, and legacy platform decommissioning is work we do regularly, including keeping the old system readable until you are confident in the new one.
What happens when two systems disagree about the same record?
We decide that before we build, field by field: which system owns it, which systems may write to it, and what the reconciliation rule is when they conflict. Most integrations that 'keep breaking' were never given that answer.
How do we find out when an integration fails?
From an alert that names the feed, the record and the reason, routed to a person rather than a shared mailbox. Behind it sit retry, a dead-letter queue and replay, so a failed batch can be reprocessed without a manual re-key.
We think we have too many systems. Is that a separate piece of work?
It is the first piece of work. A two-to-three week rationalisation map (what you run, what overlaps, what nobody logs into) usually pays for itself in retired licences before a single integration is built.
Further reading
We've written this argument out at length.
Some of the organisations we work with
Start with a conversation, not a proposal.
Tell us the problem. We’ll tell you honestly whether it’s worth solving, and what solving it would take.