Integrations

Every system you add raises the question: which one is the definitive source? That’s why an integration isn’t just a technical task—it’s an agreement. Which system determines the price, which one determines inventory, and what happens when two sources contradict each other? We answer those questions before we start building.

Then we choose the approach that fits the need. An iPaaS like Make, n8n, or Alumio when dealing with recognizable processes that you want to be able to customize yourself, or custom development on the APIs when volume, speed, or security demand it. As much as possible, we let the integration monitor itself: failed messages go into a queue and are retried, and anomalies stand out rather than surfacing a month later.

You’ll be working with Paul, Head of Engineering. He determines which system takes the lead and updates the status of each integration in a dashboard you can access yourself. That way, you can see for yourself that everything is running smoothly, rather than having to take our word for it.

Four layers. The agreements: what data is exchanged, how often, and which system takes precedence for each field. The technology: an API integration on systems that support it, or an interim solution for systems that lack a modern API. Error handling: what happens if a message doesn’t arrive, who notices it, and how it’s retried. And management: monitoring the integration itself, plus documentation so that the next party knows what’s in place.

With two systems, a direct connection is the simplest. With six, it becomes a web where every change affects three other things. In that case, a middleware or integration layer in between is more cost-effective: each system communicates with a single point instead of five others, and replacing a system means recreating just one connection, not five. We build that layer so you can extend it yourself, and we provide the documentation and access. So you’re not tied to us to add a vendor.