APPROACH / ARCHITECTURE
System architecture and integration planning before the build.
Architecture establishes where responsibilities live: which component stores a record, which interface lets someone act and which integration carries an approved change elsewhere. A clear design prevents several tools from each claiming to hold the final version of the same information.
Integration planning tests the assumptions behind those connections. Supported interfaces, account permissions, data quality and error behavior matter more than a diagram showing arrows between product names.
Bring requirements and evidence about the existing systems.
Start with agreed workflows, record definitions, user roles and acceptance criteria. Add the existing system inventory, interface documentation, permitted access, export samples and relevant platform constraints. Where interface behavior is unknown, record it as a technical question rather than a confirmed capability.
Identify operational owners for each system. A connection can be technically possible yet unsuitable if nobody can authorize access, maintain the source records or respond when a transfer fails.
Assign a source of truth for each important value.
Illustrative design decision: a customer system owns the contact record, while an operational application owns the service request. The integration uses a stable customer identifier to connect them. It does not treat a matching display name as sufficient proof that two records belong together.
Specify what triggers a transfer, which fields move, how values are transformed and what constitutes success. Define duplicate handling, update conflicts, rejected records and safe retry behavior. Repeating a request after an interruption must not create another real-world action unintentionally.
Make the implementation boundary testable.
Scoped outputs can include component and data-flow diagrams, a record model, permission matrix, interface mappings and architecture decisions with their trade-offs. Configuration, credential handling and separate testing and production environments are included at the depth the project requires.
For critical integrations, a focused technical check can establish whether the required operation is supported before wider implementation. Document what was tested, under which account conditions and what remains unverified. A successful sample transfer is not proof that every volume or failure condition is covered.
Review normal operation and failure recovery together.
Technical review checks that requirements have a responsible component and usable interface. Operational owners confirm record authority and the exception-handling process. The client decision owner accepts material trade-offs, including dependencies that constrain future changes.
Walk through a valid update, a duplicate event, an unavailable destination and a permission failure. Identify where each is recorded, who sees it and how recovery avoids duplicate work. An architecture is not ready merely because the normal path can be described.
Should we connect everything in real time?
Only when the workflow needs it and the systems support it. Scheduled transfers may be sufficient for reporting; an interactive approval may need a timely response. Choose the behavior around the decision and the consequences of delayed information.
Usually not. Make them explicit: supported interfaces, subscriptions, account ownership and operational limits. The design can reduce unnecessary coupling, but it cannot control a provider's future service changes.
Can we avoid all third-party dependencies?
Establish authority and reconciliation rules before synchronization. Conflicts may need a review queue rather than an automatic overwrite. Preserve enough context for the responsible owner to decide which value is correct.
What happens when systems contain conflicting data?
Technology Solutions & Business Services