They're integration problems. The ERP holds the data correctly and nothing else can reach it, so someone re-keys orders from the store, exports a report to build a different report, and reconciles two systems by hand every month. We fix that layer, and where an ERP genuinely needs extending or building, we do that too, at a scope we'll actually finish.
Integration · Extension · Lightweight custom builds, we don't sell enterprise rollouts
We've connected accounting and ERP systems across QuickBooks, Xero, NetSuite, Sage, Business Central, and Odoo.
Trusted by teams in the US, UK, and India
Siddhraj
Unoloft
Kofeko
3nStar
Veda
Cerata
Shubham
Consultup IndiaSiddhrajUnoloftKofeko3nStarVedaCerataShubhamConsultup IndiaERP is a category where small teams routinely overpromise and mid-market buyers routinely get burned. So here's the boundary, upfront.
With your store, CRM, bank feeds, warehouse, reporting, and document intake, so data moves without anyone retyping it.
With the screens, workflows, and reports it can't give you, built alongside the ERP rather than inside its core.
For teams who've outgrown spreadsheets and basic accounting software but are genuinely not ready for NetSuite, inventory, orders, purchasing, and costing in one system that fits how you actually work.
From a previous vendor, audit it, and tell you honestly whether to salvage or restart.
SAP, Oracle, or Dynamics rollouts are multi-year programmes needing a large team and a partner certification. That isn't us, and a firm our size telling you otherwise should worry you.
We'll give you an honest opinion on the call for free. We won't bill you for a three-month evaluation, and we have no reseller commission steering the answer.
It's the most common way an ERP becomes unupgradeable. We build alongside through supported APIs and extension points, see Section 6.
If your requirement genuinely needs a Tier 1 ERP and a large implementation partner, we'll say so on the first call and point you at the right kind of firm. We'd rather lose the project than take one we'd deliver badly.
A vendor who has never told you no has never told you the truth about scope.
Your ERP connected to the systems around it, store, CRM, bank feed, warehouse or 3PL, payment processor, reporting layer, with mapping, validation, error handling, and alerting that tells us it broke before it tells you. Bidirectional where it needs to be, one-way where that's safer.
Best for: teams whose ERP is fine and whose problem is that nothing else can reach it. This is most enquiries.
The things your ERP won't do: an approval flow that matches your actual sign-off chain, a costing rule specific to your business, a screen your warehouse team can use on a phone, a report the built-in reporting can't express. Built alongside the ERP through supported extension points, so upgrades don't break it.
Best for: teams told “the ERP can't do that” about something the business genuinely needs.
Orders, purchasing, costing, and basic financial reporting in one system, shaped around your process. For businesses running on spreadsheets plus QuickBooks or Xero, where a full ERP would cost more in licences and implementation than the problem is worth. Stock accuracy itself is its own scope, covered on inventory management.
Best for: SMBs at the point where spreadsheets have broken but NetSuite is two sizes too big.
Two things frequently come with an ERP project and are worth separating in the quote: getting supplier documents into the system without retyping is document and invoice processing, and moving data between systems on a schedule is workflow automation. Both are cheaper as their own scope than as a line item inside an ERP build, and we'll price them separately so you can see what you're paying for.
Everyone in this category has heard the horror stories. They're not mysterious, the failure patterns repeat, and each has a specific, unglamorous control.
The system arrives with an opinion about how you should operate, and rather than being told which of your practices are genuinely differentiating and which are just habit, everything gets bent to fit the tool. Six months later people are running the real process in spreadsheets alongside the ERP, which is the worst of both.
The control: map the process before the software, and mark each step as keep (it's why you win), drop (it only exists because of an old tool), or conform (the standard way is fine). We do that in the first phase and you get the map whether or not you hire us.
The big-bang cutover is the classic. Every module, every department, one weekend. When something goes wrong, and something always goes wrong, there's nothing to fall back to and the business can't ship.
The control: phased rollout, one process at a time, with the old system running in parallel until the new one has been reconciled against it. Slower on paper, and the only version that doesn't risk a quarter.
Twelve years of duplicate customers, discontinued SKUs, half-filled fields, and three spellings of the same supplier get carried straight across. Now nobody trusts the new system either, and the migration gets blamed for problems that predate it by a decade.
The control: audit and cleanse before migration, with the rules agreed in writing, and validate the migrated data against the source before anything is switched off. This is dull and it is the difference between adoption and rejection.
The ERP couldn't do something, so someone modified its core code. It worked. Then the vendor shipped an upgrade, the customisation broke, and the upgrade got postponed, permanently. Now you're running an unsupported version and every future change costs more.
The control: build alongside, never inside. Supported APIs, extension frameworks, and separate services that the ERP doesn't know about. If a requirement genuinely can't be met that way, that's a scope conversation, not a reason to touch the core.
The implementation partner finished and left. The integrations weren't monitored, an API changed, a sync failed silently, and three weeks of orders didn't reach the warehouse. There was no one to call and no documentation to read.
The control: monitoring and alerting on every integration from day one, plus a monthly plan with a named engineer who knows your setup. This is how every engagement here is scoped, not as an upsell at handover.
None of these five are technology failures. Four of them are decisions made before any code was written, and the fifth is a decision made after it shipped.
That's usually the first thing we can settle. Book a call, describe what's breaking, and we'll tell you which of the three it is, including if the honest answer is that your ERP is fine and the problem is a process nobody's fixed.
Book a discovery callAn integration that works on a good day is a demo. Six things separate that from something your finance team can rely on at month-end.
Every field, both directions, with the transformation rules named, currency, tax treatment, units, date handling, what happens to a field the other system doesn't have. Agreed before we build.
For each piece of data, exactly one system wins. Bidirectional syncs that let both sides be authoritative are how records start overwriting each other silently.
A retried message must not create a second order. Every record carries a stable identifier and every write checks before it inserts.
Anything that can't be processed goes to a visible queue with the reason attached and the original payload retained, so someone can fix and reprocess it.
ERP and accounting APIs throttle aggressively, and batch operations at month-end look nothing like a Tuesday afternoon. Backoff, batching, and queueing are designed in.
A report that compares both systems on demand and shows exactly what doesn't agree. Trust in an integration comes from being able to check it.
Where a step genuinely needs judgement, reading a non-standard supplier document, deciding which of several paths applies, that's an AI agent, and it's usually one step inside an otherwise deterministic integration. Most people overestimate how many of their steps need one.
We map how the process runs today, what each system holds, what's genuinely authoritative, and where the manual bridges are. Each step gets marked keep, drop, or conform. You get that written map whether or not you hire us, for a lot of teams it's the first time the process exists on paper.
A written scope, a fixed price, and a delivery date before any code is written, with the phases explicitly separated so you can see what ships first and what waits. If scope moves, we re-quote in writing first.
Built in a sandbox against your actual records, not sample data, with field mapping and reconciliation reporting from the start. Written update every Friday plus a short Loom walkthrough of what moved.
The new path runs alongside the existing one, and you compare the two before switching anything off. Then it goes live one process at a time, never everything at once. If a phase doesn't reconcile, it doesn't ship.
Every integration alerts on failure, so we know before you do. Monthly: reviewing error queues, re-running reconciliation, handling API changes from vendors who don't warn you, and extending as the business changes.
Not listed? If it has an API, we can almost certainly connect it. Some older ERP and accounting software genuinely doesn't have one, in that case we'll tell you before you commit and propose a database-level or file-based exchange rather than promising an integration that doesn't exist.
The financial and operational system of record, purchasing, costing, and ledgers, and everything that has to connect to it.
The stock number being right, everywhere, all the time. A data accuracy and sync problem, not a system-of-record one. Start here if the pain is overselling, not month-end.
The system of record for customers, deals, and pipeline. Different subject, same engineering discipline.
A place your team does one specific piece of work that no system of record covers. Frequently the right answer when the complaint is “the ERP can't do X.”
Read-only visibility across the ERP and everything around it, without touching the ERP itself.
Something happens without anyone opening anything. Plenty of “ERP integration” enquiries are this, at a fraction of the cost.
Getting supplier documents into the ERP without anyone retyping them. The most common thing an ERP buyer actually needs next.
The engineering underneath all of these. If you're evaluating who can build custom software at all, not just this shape of it.
Honest answer: a meaningful share of ERP enquiries we take turn out to be a workflow-automation project and a document-processing project standing next to each other. That combination is cheaper, faster, and lower-risk than anything with "ERP" in the title, and we'd rather say so in week one than month four.
Fixed price, quoted in writing before we start. No hourly billing, no surprise change orders. In a category famous for open-ended budgets, this is the point.
One connection built properly: mapping, validation, error queues, reconciliation reporting, monitoring, and the first month of support
Scoped and quoted after the systems audit
Good for: Proving the approach on the connection that's costing you the most time
Several connections or custom modules scoped together, phased so each goes live and is reconciled before the next begins
Priced once we know how many systems and how they connect
Good for: Most teams, this is where the manual bridges actually disappear
Orders, purchasing, and costing built as one system, migrated from your current spreadsheets and accounting software, phased over several weeks. Stock accuracy is scoped separately, through inventory management
Priced after the process and systems audit
Good for: SMBs where spreadsheets have broken and a Tier 1 ERP is two sizes too big
Every build includes monitoring for the first month. After that it's a monthly fee for monitoring, reconciliation review, vendor API changes, and small feature work, see what that covers, and you can stop any time. You keep the source code, the integration configuration, and the documentation either way.
Book a 30-minute call. We'll map where the data actually lives, tell you whether this is an integration, an extension, or a new system, and if it needs a firm bigger than us, we'll tell you that too.
