Automation and integration
Two systems both hold the truth and disagree. Someone re-types data between them, chases an approval by email, and reconciles the difference at month end.
What we deliver
- Time the manual process as it runs today, so the saving claimed later has a baseline
- Decide per data flow whether it is event-driven, batched, or better left manual
- Build integrations against documented contracts, with schema validation at both ends
- Design the exception path first: what happens to a record that fails, and who sees it
- Make every run idempotent, so a retry cannot double-post an invoice or an order
- Keep an audit trail that records what moved, when, and which version of the rules applied
- Hand over a reconciliation report the finance team can run without us
- Leave the human approval in place wherever judgement, not typing, is the real work
Engagement
Process timing
The current process measured, step by step, with the cost of each handoff
1 week
Integration design
Data contracts, flow diagram, exception-handling rules, and the ownership map
1 to 2 weeks
Build and parallel run
Automation running beside the manual process, with both results compared daily
3 to 8 weeks
Cutover
Manual process retired, reconciliation report signed off by the process owner
1 week
What we need from you
- The person who currently performs the process, for two hours of observation
- API credentials or a sandbox for every system in scope, before design starts
- A decision on who receives exceptions and what authority they hold
- Agreement that the parallel run continues until two consecutive clean reconciliations
After delivery
- Failed records land in a queue a named person reviews daily, never in a log nobody reads
- Volume and failure rates are reported monthly against the baseline measured at the start
- Partner API changes are our problem to absorb, inside the support scope
- Rules are versioned, so a dispute about what happened in March can be answered