ERP & CRM Integration
ERP and CRM integration is connecting the systems your business runs on — finance, operations, sales, support, e-commerce — so information moves between them automatically and consistently. It is unglamorous work that removes a great deal of manual effort and a great many errors.
The problem
When a person is the integration
Somebody re-keys orders between two systems, and that is their job
They are good at it. They catch things. They are also the only reason the two systems agree, which means the process has a single point of failure that goes on holiday, and nobody has costed what happens that week.
Finance spends the first days of each month reconciling systems that should already agree
The differences are small, they are different every month, and finding each one means tracing a record back through both systems by hand. Nobody believes the discrepancy is important; everybody knows it has to be resolved before anything can be reported.
A customer received the wrong price, and the handoff that caused it failed silently
A record did not sync, or synced stale, and nothing anywhere raised an alarm. You found out because the customer told you. The unsettling part is not the error — it is that there is no way to know how many others are sitting undetected right now.
What a real fix takes
Connecting two systems is the easy part. The work is deciding which system is authoritative for each field, and that is an organisational question rather than a technical one — sales and finance frequently both believe they own the customer record, and until someone decides, any integration you build simply automates the disagreement and lets it propagate faster. The second thing that separates an integration that lasts from one that quietly rots is what happens when something fails. Integrations do not usually break loudly; they skip a record, retry into a void, or write a stale value, and the damage accumulates for weeks before a human notices. Error queues, reconciliation reporting and alerting on records that did not arrive are the least interesting part of the design and the part that determines whether you can trust the result.
Outcomes
What changes
Data entered once
The same customer, order or invoice keyed into multiple systems is both a direct cost and a permanent source of discrepancy.
Reconciliation that stops being a job
A significant share of finance and operations time goes to resolving differences between systems that should already agree.
Reporting across the whole business
rather than per system, without someone assembling it in a spreadsheet each month.
Fewer errors reaching customers
Wrong addresses, stale pricing and duplicated records usually originate in a broken handoff rather than in human carelessness.
What we build
What we build
Integrations between ERP, CRM, e-commerce, warehouse, billing and support platforms; integration layers where point-to-point connections would multiply unmanageably; data synchronisation with conflict handling and explicit rules about which system is authoritative; migration between platforms; and API development where a system lacks the interface you need.
The design decisions that matter are made before any code: the system of record for each field, what happens when two systems change the same record, how far back historical data has to be consistent, and what a failure should do. Skipping these produces an integration that works during testing and fails in ways nobody can diagnose six months later.
What you receive
What you receive
The integrations themselves, running against your systems, with the field mapping documented — which system is authoritative for each field, how conflicts resolve, and what happens to a record that fails to sync.
Alongside them, the operational layer that makes the integration maintainable: error queues where failed records wait visibly rather than disappearing, reconciliation reporting so a discrepancy is surfaced by the system rather than discovered by a customer, and monitoring that alerts when a sync stops. Whoever maintains this after us can see what it is doing and why, which is the difference between an integration your team owns and one they are afraid to touch.
How it works
How it works
Mapping
What data lives where, which system owns each field, and where the current process actually breaks. This is where the organisational decisions get made, and it needs people who can make them.
Integration design
, including error handling, conflict rules and reconciliation — the parts that get skipped and then cause the incidents.
Build and test against real data
, because production data contains cases no test fixture anticipates.
Monitored deployment
, with reconciliation running from the first day rather than added after the first problem.
Typical engagement is six to twelve weeks depending on system count and data quality. The phase that runs longer than planned is almost always historical migration, because the old records turn out to be inconsistent in ways nobody has previously had to confront — and each inconsistency needs a decision from someone who knows why it happened.
Technology
What we work with
Platforms we work with and integrate against, determined by what you already run rather than by preference. Naming a platform here means we work with it, not that we resell it or hold any arrangement with its vendor.
Business systems: the major ERP and CRM platforms — SAP, NetSuite, Dynamics, Odoo, Salesforce, HubSpot — alongside e-commerce, warehouse, billing and support tools.
Legacy and custom systems: integrated wherever an interface exists or can be built — database-level access, file exchange, or a purpose-built API where the system exposes nothing usable.
Integration approach: direct connections where there are few systems, and an integration layer once point-to-point links would multiply beyond what anyone can maintain.
Monitoring: error queues, reconciliation reporting and alerting, treated as part of the build rather than as an addition.
Where this applies
Where this applies
Strongest where staff manually move data between systems, where reports require assembly by hand, or where two systems routinely disagree — common in logistics and supply chain, manufacturing and retail and e-commerce, where order, inventory and finance systems accumulate over years and rarely arrive designed to work together.
Weakest where the systems themselves are the wrong ones. Integrating software your team is actively working around treats the symptom and entrenches the cause.
Where the reporting layer is the actual complaint rather than the data movement, data and analytics addresses it more directly.
Why us
One team, not three vendors
The usual way
- A strategy consultant, a development shop and a marketing agency, each scoped separately.
- Months spent getting three vendors to agree, and blame to allocate when something breaks.
- The model ships and adoption becomes somebody else's problem.
With Nexiour
- One team across strategy, engineering and growth. You skip the coordination tax entirely.
- We own the whole outcome — from the first audit to the system that is running.
- Delivery across the UK, UAE, Germany and India, with overlapping hours in four markets.
What it costs
How we scope and price
Fixed scope, quoted after a systems assessment. Cost is driven by the number of systems, the quality of their interfaces, data quality, and how much historical migration is required.
Legacy systems without proper interfaces cost more, and we identify that during the assessment rather than mid-build. Migration is scoped separately from the integrations themselves, because it is frequently the larger piece and it deserves its own number rather than being folded into an estimate.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Usually, though it depends on what it exposes. Modern APIs are straightforward; older systems may need database-level access, file exchange, or a purpose-built interface. We assess this before quoting because it is the main cost variable.
Defined by design: a system of record for each field, explicit conflict rules, error queues for exceptions, and reconciliation reporting. Ambiguity here is what causes integrations to fail quietly, which is the worst way for them to fail.
When the systems are genuinely wrong for the business and everyone is working around them — you would be automating a bad fit. When nobody can decide which system owns the customer record, because that decision is a prerequisite rather than something the project resolves. When the volume of manual transfer is genuinely small. And when a platform consolidation is already planned, in which case integrating now is work you are about to discard.
Six to twelve weeks for a typical multi-system integration. Data quality is usually the variable rather than the connections themselves.
Rarely the first answer. Replacement is expensive and disruptive, and integration frequently solves the actual problem for far less. If a system genuinely cannot do what you need, we will say so rather than build around it indefinitely.
Migration is scoped separately and is often the largest part of the work, because historical data is usually inconsistent in ways nobody has had to confront before.
With a few systems, direct connections are simpler and cheaper to run. Beyond that, point-to-point links multiply and become unmaintainable, and a layer earns its place.
Related