API Integration Services

It is driven almost entirely by the quality of the API on the far side, not by the number of systems. A documented REST API with sandbox access, OAuth and webhooks is straightforward. A legacy system with no documentation, no test environment and an undocumented rate limit is a different job at the same nominal scope. We scope against the actual API before quoting.

It will, and the integration is built on that assumption. We monitor for failures rather than waiting for someone to notice missing data, log every request so a failure can be diagnosed from evidence, and pin to explicit API versions so a provider's release cannot silently change behaviour. When one breaks, the integration queues or retries rather than dropping records.

Usually, though the approach changes. In rough order of preference: an undocumented internal API the vendor will grant access to, a file or database exchange on a schedule, an existing middleware connector, or headless browser automation as a last resort. That last one is genuinely fragile and we will say so. Sometimes the right answer is that it is not worth building.

A single well-documented integration — a form to a CRM, a store to an accounting system — is typically days rather than weeks once we have credentials and sandbox access. Multi-system syncs with two-way data flow, conflict resolution and historical backfill take longer, because the hard part is not the API calls but deciding what happens when both systems have changed the same record. We give you a specific date after scoping rather than a range up front.

Yes, and we would encourage it. An integration is not a finished artefact — it is a dependency on someone else's roadmap. Ongoing maintenance covers monitoring, version migrations before deprecation deadlines, credential and token rotation, and fixing failures when a provider changes behaviour. Integrations that nobody maintains do not fail loudly; they usually fail quietly, and the cost is discovered weeks later in missing data.