Systems that talk
Integrations
We connect the systems you already pay for so data moves between them without anybody retyping it. Accounts, bookings, payments, bank feeds and the conversion data your ad platforms need, moving one way on a schedule.
Price
On enquiry
How it works
Step 01
We name the systems, the records and the direction
Which system, which records, and which way the data moves, written down before anything is configured, because the vague version is what turns into an access problem later.
Step 02
Access is scoped to the least that works
Read where read is enough. One drive, not the whole tenant. The quick alternative is granting broad access, which is how an assistant ends up able to open payroll because payroll sat in the same folder tree.
Step 03
The audit trail is switched on
Logging configured so there is a record of what was read and when. An access review needs something to review, and it is set up before it is needed.
Step 04
It is documented and the team is walked through it
What was granted, to what, and who approved it, plus a short session so people know what the assistant can and cannot see. Half of connector problems are misunderstanding, not configuration.
What is included
- One system named as the source of truth for each field
- Bank and payment feeds reconciled overnight
- Server-side conversion tracking, so the ad platforms see the real sales
- Every run logged with what it read and what it changed
- A failure opens a ticket instead of going quiet
Questions
- How is this different from a workflow automation or the bank feed?
- An integration is a pipe: one system, one direction, one scope, so data arrives somewhere without being retyped. An automation is a job on a schedule that does something with it. The bank feed is both, pre-scoped for one job that a lot of businesses have. If you know which systems need to talk and nothing has to happen on a timer, this is the one.
- What counts as one connector?
- One system, one direction, one scope. Read access to a shared drive is one. Adding write access later is a change; adding a second system is a second connector.
- Why does least privilege matter so much here?
- Because the fast version is granting broad access and moving on, and the cost of that only appears when somebody gets an answer sourced from a document they should never have seen. Scoping properly takes an hour and removes that class of problem permanently.
- Who reviews the access afterwards?
- The documentation names what was granted and to whom, so a review has something to work from. On a compliance retainer that review is scheduled. On its own, it is yours to run.
- Does this work with any AI seat?
- It depends on what the seat supports. Microsoft and Google ground in their own tenants natively, so those need configuration, not a connector. Claude and ChatGPT reach a narrower set of systems, and we confirm feasibility before quoting.
Talk to us
Tell us what the work looks like now. We will say whether Integrations is the right line for you, and what it would cost.
Send us the detail