A clear data contract
Map the fields, record identifiers, permissions, and source of truth. Decide what should sync, in which direction, and which changes should never be automatic.
Service 03 / API & Integrations
YOUR TOOLS SHOULD TALK. CORRECTLY.
Copy. Paste. Check the other system. Copy again. If that is the integration, there is probably a better conversation your software could be having.
Start with the problem
WE READ THE BRIEF. THEN ASK BETTER QUESTIONS.
Connecting two tools is easy to describe and surprisingly easy to get wrong. Which system owns the record? What happens if the same event arrives twice? What happens when a provider is down? We plan for those questions before calling a connection finished.
What we work through
THE WORK BEHIND THE WORKING THING.
The connection and its failure paths
Build around the provider’s authentication, limits, and supported behavior. Define retries, duplicate handling, and useful error reporting for the scenarios in scope.
Enough visibility to troubleshoot
Agree on logs, health checks, and operating notes that help someone understand a failed transfer. Keep credentials and private payloads out of places they do not belong.
From brief to shipped
LESS GUESSING. A CLEAR NEXT STEP.
- 01
Read both sides
Inspect the available documentation, access requirements, and real data shapes. Confirm the connection is possible before promising that two logos on a diagram equal a working system.
- 02
Prove a small exchange
Test a representative record or event with safe sample data. Validate the mapping and permissions before expanding the flow.
- 03
Exercise the unhappy paths
Check duplicate events, invalid data, provider errors, and recovery. Document what is automatic and what still needs a person to decide.
Scope before surprises
WHAT SHAPES THE PROJECT?
Complexity comes from data quality, API access, volume, provider limits, and the number of systems involved. Third-party outages and undocumented restrictions are real constraints. Historical imports and ongoing synchronization should be scoped separately because they can require very different safeguards.
Fair questions
LET’S CLEAR A FEW THINGS UP.
What if a tool has no public API?
We first check supported options such as exports, native integrations, or provider-approved access. We will not assume an unsupported workaround is a dependable production integration.
Can you repair an existing webhook or sync?
Yes, subject to reviewing the code and provider behavior. Logs, example failures, and a description of the expected result are useful starting points.
Will it run without anyone checking it?
Automation still needs an owner and a response plan. The scope should identify monitoring, failure notifications, and maintenance responsibilities rather than assume the connection will never need attention.
Your move
TELL US WHAT NEEDS TO CONNECT.
Name the tools, the information that should move, and the manual step you want gone. We can work outward from there.