Systems that talk to each other, finally
Custom platforms, ERP and CRM integration, and legacy modernization that does not require stopping the business while it happens.
The problem
Your ERP holds the truth, your CRM holds the relationship, and a spreadsheet holds the part that connects them. Every new requirement means another export, another manual step, another place the numbers can disagree.
You are probably here if
If three or more of these are true, this pillar is where your constraint lives.
- 01The same customer record exists in three systems
- 02Month end requires exports from more than two tools
- 03A vendor system has no API and cannot be changed
- 04Nobody will touch the legacy service because it runs production
- 05New features wait behind an integration that keeps slipping
What we actually do
Custom SaaS
Multi tenant platforms with the boring parts done properly: auth, billing, roles, audit.
System integration
ERP, CRM, WMS and finance systems connected through an owned integration layer.
Legacy modernization
Strangler pattern migration. One module at a time, production never stops.
Product rescue
A build that stalled. We stabilize, re-scope, and get it shipping again.
How it runs, and where you can stop
Each phase ends with something you own. Stopping after any of them leaves you better off than before it.
- 012w
Survey
Every system, every contract constraint, every integration that already exists.
- 022w
Architect
Target design, migration order, and the rollback plan for each step.
- 038-24w
Build
Increments behind flags. Each one is reversible on its own.
- 042-4w
Cut over
Parallel run, reconciliation, then decommission on a date everyone agreed.
What you receive
Artifacts, not a slide deck. Each one is usable by your team without us in the room.
- System inventory with contract and licence constraints
- Target architecture with rejected alternatives documented
- Migration order and rollback plan per step
- The platform or integration layer, in production
- Reconciliation reports from the parallel run
- Decommission checklist for the systems being retired
What this is usually built on
One engagement from this pillar
A tracking portal that stopped queueing behind itself
Peak hour timeouts on a shipment tracker, caused by a vendor system nobody was allowed to touch.
Read the full case- p95 response
- 6.8s710ms
- Throughput
- 1.0x3.9x
- Tickets
- 100%46%
Measured over 90 days post launch against the prior 90 days. Source: Datadog APM, April 2025
Not a fit if
We would rather lose the engagement on this page than at week six.
- The vendor contract forbids the integration and renegotiation is off the table
- You need it live in six weeks and the parallel run alone takes four
- There is no internal owner for the systems being connected
Asked on almost every first call
Can you integrate a system with no API?
Usually. Change data capture on the database, file drops, or screen level automation as a last resort. We tell you which one and what it costs to maintain.
Do we have to stop operations during migration?
No. Strangler pattern means the old system keeps running until the new path is proven for that module.
Who owns the code?
You do, from the first commit, in your own repository.
What about the vendor lock in we already have?
We map it explicitly in the survey. Sometimes the honest answer is that leaving costs more than staying, and we say so.
How do you handle data that disagrees between systems?
Reconciliation reports during the parallel run. Every mismatch is listed and resolved before cut over, not after.
Bring the constraint, not the brief
The first call is 45 minutes and free. If platforms and integration is the wrong pillar for your problem we will say so and point you at the right one.