Enterprise integrations & automation

Integration is the product

AI that lives in a separate tab does not change how work gets done. People will not context-switch into a chat window to do a task their existing system already half-handles.

The value appears when the capability shows up inside the workflow: in the ticket, the ledger, the channel, the record. That makes integration the deliverable rather than the plumbing behind it.

The unglamorous parts that decide whether it survives

Idempotency
A retry must not double-write. Systems fail midway more often than they fail cleanly, and a non-idempotent sync turns a transient error into a data problem.
Dry-run modes
Every destructive operation should be inspectable before it lands, so a change can be reviewed rather than trusted.
Rollback paths
A defined way back from a bad run, decided before the bad run rather than during it.
Audit logs
What changed, when, on whose behalf, and why: a by-product of running rather than a compliance project afterwards.
Rate limits and backoff
Enterprise APIs throttle. Handling that properly is the difference between a sync that completes and one that half-completes nightly.

Identity and permissions

Anything that reads or writes on a user's behalf inherits that user's permissions, which means identity is part of the integration rather than a layer above it. SCIM provisioning, role mapping, and de-provisioning all have to work, including the unhappy paths.

Getting this wrong is how an automation ends up with more access than any human in the organisation.

What you get

Integration pipelines with idempotent writes
Dry-run and rollback tooling
Audit logging and run observability
Identity and permission mapping, including de-provisioning
Scheduling with predictable, monitored runs

Start here if

AI capability exists but nobody uses it because it is in another tool
A sync fails partway and leaves inconsistent state
No audit trail for automated writes
Access granted to an automation that nobody reviews

Frequently asked questions

Can you work with our existing integration platform?

Usually yes. Where a tool like a workflow automation platform already handles the orchestration adequately, the sensible move is to use it and add the missing guarantees around it. Custom middleware is worth building when the guarantees matter more than the convenience: typically idempotency, audit, and permission handling that low-code tools do not express well.

How do you handle systems with no usable API?

By being honest about the trade-off. Scheduled exports, file drops, and database-level integration are all legitimate when an API is absent, provided the same guarantees hold: idempotency, dry runs, audit. Screen-scraping a system of record is normally where we would advise against automating at all.