Loading…
Organizations that build integrations without a defined strategy end up with integration sprawl: dozens of point-to-point connections, no shared design standards, no visibility into what connects to what, and no ability to answer the question "what breaks if we replace this system?"
Interviews with system owners, IT leadership, and operations teams. Combined with documentation review and tooling inventory to produce an accurate current-state map — not a self-reported summary.
Structured analysis of integration gaps (needed integrations that don't exist), integration debt (existing integrations that are fragile, redundant, or misaligned), and governance gaps (missing standards, visibility tools, or ownership models).
Evaluation of candidate platforms against documented requirements. Pattern recommendations for each integration type. Output: a platform decision document with rationale and alternatives considered.
Bring us the constraint. We'll bring the team.
Every point-to-point integration added without governance makes the next one harder and the eventual replacement of any connected system more expensive. Integration debt compounds faster than technical debt because it scales with the number of systems, not the number of applications.
Integration strategy engagements are not long consulting exercises. They produce concrete, actionable outputs: an accurate picture of the current state, a defined target state, and a sequenced roadmap to get from one to the other.
We document the existing integration landscape: every system, every integration, every data exchange, and the technology used for each. We identify redundant integrations, fragile point-to-point connections, manual data transfers that should be automated, and integration patterns that conflict with each other. This is the honest starting point — not an assumed baseline.
We evaluate integration platform options against your actual requirements: volume, latency, governance requirements, team skills, budget, and strategic platform alignment (particularly relevant when GCP is the primary cloud and Apigee X or Google Cloud Application Integration is a candidate). We produce a platform recommendation with documented rationale — not a vendor preference.
For organizations building or evolving an API layer, we define the governance framework: API design standards (naming, versioning, error response formats), the review and approval process for new APIs, the deprecation policy, the developer portal strategy, and the team model (centralized platform team vs. federated API ownership).
A sequenced delivery plan that prioritizes integrations by business impact, technical dependency, and risk. The roadmap aligns with the broader IT roadmap and accounts for the systems being replaced, consolidated, or extended over the planning horizon.
API design standards, review process, versioning policy, and team ownership model — documented in a format your team can operationalize immediately.
A prioritized integration roadmap with effort estimates, dependencies, and business case for each initiative. Ready to be used as the input for the integration architecture and implementation phases.