Defined scope
One source-to-target flow: stabilise an existing interface or implement a defined new integration. Before work, agree whether the deliverable is a specification or a tested implementation.
Service
Interface Engineering Sprint
Two starting points: restore trust in an existing interface, or design and implement a new connection. Each is a separately scoped engagement across APIs, files, jobs and webhooks involving ERP, CRM, MES, EAM, SaaS or custom systems. EAM is not a prerequisite.
Call when An existing flow needs repeated corrections, or a new connection needs clear rules and reliable processing.
What I do I agree the source-to-target flow and acceptance cases, investigate existing failures where relevant, and deliver the agreed specification or tested implementation.
You receive Data-flow and mapping definition, acceptance cases, findings for an existing flow, and the agreed specification or tested change with handover notes.
Your work package
What we agree before starting
How the result is accepted
For a specification, owners review mappings, timing, exceptions and test cases. For implementation, agreed normal, duplicate, delayed and rejected cases verify the required target state.
Production and ongoing support
A new integration is scoped separately from a repair. Production release, credentials, monitoring operations, recovery and support need named owners and an explicit agreement.
ERP & interface engineering
Infor COM, finance handovers and EDI
Practical support for Infor COM ERP, IGF/Varial and EDI, from screens and repository logic to SQL, reports and administration with IMC. A defined ERP or interface issue can be commissioned independently of EAM.
Repair or new integration
Two ways to start interface work
Stabilise a flow people cannot trust, or define and build a new connection. In either case, agree the required target state, exceptions and responsibility before changing systems.
ERP, finance or inventory records do not reconcile
I match selected transactions across both systems and locate where quantities, values, identifiers or posting dates diverge. The result shows whether mapping, timing or reconciliation logic needs to change.
A SaaS webhook returns success while downstream records remain incomplete
I trace one webhook from payload and acknowledgement through queues, jobs and downstream writes. A successful response only counts when the required target state can also be verified.
Batch or API transfers arrive late, twice or in the wrong sequence
Timestamps, correlation IDs and duplicate-handling rules reveal whether scheduling, idempotency or sequence is the real problem. Representative failure cases become repeatable tests for the fix.
Reporting and source systems show different operational truths
I define the authoritative source for each important field and status, then trace the reporting transformation. Disagreements can then be resolved through explicit rules instead of manual debate.
Manual corrections hide missing validation or retry logic
Corrected records often reveal the missing control. I turn repeated workarounds into a defined validation, retry or exception process with evidence that it closes the original gap.
Ownership between IT, partners and operations is unclear
I map who detects, triages, corrects and closes each exception across IT, partners and operations. Clear decision rights prevent errors from disappearing between team or contract boundaries.
A new source-to-target integration needs mapping, failure handling and acceptance tests
For a new connection, I define the business event, source of truth, target state, mappings and failure handling before the agreed specification or implementation begins. The scope stays with one flow and its acceptance cases.
Scope and deliverables
Scope and tangible results
The scope stays close to the systems, data and workflows that affect day-to-day work. The deliverables are designed to support a clear next decision.
Scope
New connections with agreed source and target responsibilities
Mapping, status meaning, validation and timing
Duplicate, delayed, rejected and missing records
Monitoring, reconciliation and exception ownership
Deliverables
Agreed source-to-target map, data meaning and acceptance cases
Evidence-backed findings for existing failures, where applicable
Explicitly agreed specification or implementation with recorded test results
Monitoring, exception, deployment and recovery guidance with named owners
How it works
How the engagement works
A defined sequence keeps the work focused. Representative examples and access to the right owners make the review faster and more reliable.
Steps
Choose existing-flow stabilisation or a defined new integration
Agree mapping, timing, ownership and acceptance cases
Investigate failures or design the new flow, then deliver the agreed specification or implementation
Review evidence, handover and outstanding conditions before production release
Fit and boundaries
Good fit and clear boundaries
A focused scope makes the work easier to evaluate, deliver and hand over.
Good fit
- Owners planning a new API, file or event-driven integration
- Interfaces that are live but operationally unreliable
- Teams spending too much time reconciling or correcting records
Not included
- Not a generic monitoring project
- Not just API documentation
- Not a blame exercise between teams
Related services
Useful next steps and related services
Operational problems can cross system, data, interface, workflow and AI/ML boundaries. These services are often relevant together, but each can also stand alone.
Does this service fit your case?
Bring the current workflow or problem, a few representative examples and the business context. The first step is to decide what is worth changing, testing or leaving alone.