Not the platform, and not the process design. The connection between the platform and the systems that already hold your data — consistently underestimated, consistently on the critical path.
The pattern repeats across engagements, and it is rarely about the technology being difficult in the abstract.
Platform selection and process design get the attention. Integration gets estimated late, by people who have not yet seen the source data, and the estimate is optimistic.
The internal team who understand the ERP are the same people running it. Integration competes with their day job and loses, quietly, for weeks at a time.
Source systems change. An integration nobody is watching fails silently, and the first sign is usually a number that does not reconcile.
Integration as a service: we build it, then we run it.
We have integrated these systems before, and we reuse that work rather than starting from a blank page each time. Where a system is genuinely new to us, we build for it — including older systems with no modern interface.
What we will not do is tell you every system is equally easy. Some are not, and the ERP pages below say which.
Monitoring, error handling and support against agreed SLAs, on a predictable subscription rather than an open-ended time and materials bill.
This is the part that matters after month three, when the project team has moved on and a source system changes shape.
What is genuinely specific to each, rather than the same page with a different logo.
SAP holds the spend data. Getting it out, in a shape a Source to Pay platform can use, is where the schedule goes.
Dynamics is flexible by design. That flexibility is exactly what makes each integration different from the last.
Oracle estates are rarely simple, and rarely two the same. The integration has to start from the one in front of you.
Sage is straightforward to run and less straightforward to integrate. Most of the difficulty is in the data, not the interface.
TechnologyOne is common across Australian public sector and education, where the compliance bar on data handling is higher than average.
Epicor's schema is less forgiving than most. That changes how an integration has to be designed, and it is better known up front.
PeopleSoft estates are usually long-lived, and long-lived estates carry history that an integration has to respect.
Infor's configurability and its Ming.le layer both shape how an integration has to be built.
Stripe is not an ERP, and integrating it is a different problem: reconciling what was charged with what actually settled.
Running something not listed? Tell us what it is — the list reflects what clients have asked for most often, not the limit of what we connect to.
On a Source to Pay programme for a Philippine manufacturer, our middleware connects Coupa to on-premise SAP S/4HANA through standard BAPI and RFC connectors — so the integration does not require an SAP BTP subscription, and is delivered as a fully managed service.
Read that case study → · A manufacturer's e-invoicing integration →
Tell us the source systems and the target platform. We will tell you what the integration involves before you commit to anything.
Start a conversation