Where your data moves, what breaks if something changes, who owns the integrations.
Your systems talk to each other. Most of those conversations were set up years ago by people who are no longer in the business, using approaches that made sense at the time. When something changes — a vendor upgrade, a new system, a regulation, a contract renewal — the consequences are unpredictable because nobody has a current map.
The Review tells you, in writing: where data moves, what depends on what, and what would break if any of it changed.
That is what this engagement is.
€15,000. Three to four weeks. Delivered in writing, with a presentation to whoever needs to hear it.
Fixed fee. No implementation work. No commissions. No product recommendations influenced by suppliers.
Why clients commission a review
An Integration & API Review is usually triggered by a specific moment. Most often, one of these:
- A system change is being planned and the dependencies between systems are unknown or contested.
- A vendor has announced end-of-life for a critical integration or platform.
- An incident or near-miss has surfaced integration brittleness that no one had documented.
- A new system is being introduced and the integration surface to existing systems is uncertain.
- An audit, customer query, or regulator is asking about data flows and the answers are inconsistent.
- Recurring outages or data errors are being traced to integrations that have no clear owner.
- A merger or operating-model change is creating new integration needs at speed.
- The integration platform itself is being evaluated for replacement or significant investment.
If one of these is the position you are in, the Review is built for it.
Who this is for
Owners, MDs, and CTOs of businesses where systems sprawl is creating operational friction.
Operations and IT leads asking the question “what breaks if we change this?” — and not finding a confident answer.
Architecture and engineering teams who need an outside view of integration health before committing to significant change.
Acquirers post-deal needing to reconcile the integration estate of the combined business.
Who this is not for
Pre-revenue businesses or single-system operations where the question does not yet apply.
Owners wanting implementation work — we identify and recommend; we do not build.
Buyers wanting a single-system architectural deep-dive. For that, see the Architecture Review.
Regulatory data-flow attestation. The Review can inform one, but does not substitute for one.
What you receive
The Review tells you the integration estate, the single points of failure, and the ownership gaps. Five artefacts, delivered together.
An integration inventory and data flow map. Every integration in the business — system to system, system to vendor, vendor to vendor. Mapped, documented, and described in plain language.
A dependency analysis. For each significant system, what depends on it and what it depends on. The Review answers, for any system in the estate: what breaks if we change this?
A single-point-of-failure register. Where the integration estate has no redundancy, no fallback, and no documented recovery path. Each entry ranked by business impact.
An ownership matrix. Who owns each integration today — and where ownership is unclear, unassigned, or held by people who have left the business.
Recommendations and board presentation. What to address first, second, third. A board-cycle session to walk through the findings and the roadmap.
Typical outcomes
Most Reviews result in one of four conclusions.
The integration estate is sound. Document and maintain. Future change can proceed with confidence.
Specific brittleness is identified. Particular integrations need attention — ownership, documentation, redundancy. The roadmap names them.
A significant remediation programme is needed. Multiple integrations have grown without governance and require sequenced investment.
Critical exposure requires immediate attention. No ownership, no monitoring, vendor-driven risk that should be addressed before any major change or transaction event.
The Review tells you which of these your business is in, and what to do about it.
How the Review runs
Three to four weeks, in four phases.
Week one — inventory. Documentation review, monitoring data, vendor list, contract calendar. Everything that already exists about the integration estate, in one place.
Week two — interviews and live system tracing. Engineering, operations, key vendor relationships. Where the documentation differs from the operational reality, we identify both.
Week three — synthesis and risk ranking. Findings written up. Single points of failure ranked. Ownership gaps named.
Week four — presentation and recommendations. The board-cycle session. Roadmap sequenced. Revisions if the report needs tightening.
Everything is written before it is said. Nothing is presented to your board that you have not read first.
What this is not
Integration platform selection or procurement. The Review assesses what exists; selection is a separate engagement.
Implementation work. We identify and recommend; we do not build, configure, or deploy.
Penetration testing or offensive security of integration endpoints. Security architecture is in scope; offensive testing is a specialist engagement.
API design or specification. The Review assesses what exists, not what should be built next.
An integration review is not a maintenance task. It is risk identification.
The purpose of the Review is not to redesign your integrations. It is to give leadership a clear, written answer to: what would break if any system changed — so decisions about change, investment, and vendor relationships are made with full sight of the consequences.
Proof
References available on request. Anonymised excerpts from prior reviews available on request.
What happens next
Start a ConversationThirty minutes. We confirm fit, scope, and timing. You decide whether to proceed. No proposal is sent unless you ask for one.
Start with the Technology Control Assessment — €4,950A scored framework reading in five working days, with integration risk surfaced within the broader assessment. The right starting point if you want to see where integration sits in context before committing to a focused Review.
For a comprehensive framework review, see Technology Control Review.