Data & integrations

The integration surface is the project.

Value appears when output lands in the system you run on, reversibly and with permissions intact. That is the hard part, and it is the work.

Schedule call Read the method

Patch cables bundled in tight rows across a network rack

Service overview

Most AI pilots produce a result that stops in a spreadsheet. Someone still re-types it into the system of record, so nothing downstream gets faster and nothing shows up in the numbers. Integration is what closes that loop.

The work is unglamorous and specific: idempotent writes so a retry cannot duplicate a record, permissions carried through the AI layer rather than bypassed with a service account, queues and retries and dead letters, backfills for when something goes wrong, and an audit record tying every write to the decision behind it.

We also expose your systems as governed tools, so the next agent you build plugs into them instead of re-solving the same problem. That is what makes the second workflow cheaper than the first.

Talk to us

Where does the re-typing happen?

Name the systems and we will tell you what can be written to, what cannot, and what that changes about the build.

Schedule call

What we build

Bi-directional sync

Reads and writes between your systems of record, idempotent and reversible in one action.

Legacy adapters

SOAP endpoints, SFTP drops, fixed-width mainframe exports and permissions models built in 2009.

Event pipelines

Queues, retries, dead letters and replay, so a failure is recoverable rather than silent.

Identity and permissions

SSO, SCIM and row-level access carried through the AI layer, with no shared service accounts.

Tool layer for agents

Your systems exposed as governed, permissioned tools the next build can reuse.

Data foundations

Warehouse models, entity resolution and the deduplication that has to happen before AI is useful.

Entity resolution

The same customer under three names in three systems, finally reconciled.

Bulk import and backfill

Historical loads and corrections that do not take the live system down.

Webhooks and real-time events

Reacting to things as they happen rather than in tomorrow’s batch.

Data quality gates

Validation that stops bad records entering, with a queue for the ones a human must judge.

Cross-system reconciliation

Proving two systems agree, and flagging precisely where they do not.

API layers for internal use

A clean interface over a messy source, so the next project does not repeat the work.

Why Momentem for this

About the company →

action to reverse any automated write

If it cannot be undone in a single step, it does not get automated. It gets an approval gate.

Idempotent by default

Every write carries a key, so a retry cannot create a duplicate or an orphan.

Permissions carried through

Row-level access follows the user, not a service account that can see everything.

Auditable end to end

Each write links to the decision record behind it, so an auditor can reconstruct what happened and why.

Reusable, not point-to-point

A governed tool layer rather than scripts nobody can maintain, which makes the next workflow faster.

Failure is recoverable

Retries, dead letters, replay and backfill, so an incident is fixable rather than silent.

No connector licence

Connectors live in your repository with tests and docs. Nothing to keep paying us for.

Entity resolution included

The same customer under three names in three systems gets reconciled before anything is automated on top of it.

How this compares

Momentem

Large consultancy

Off-the-shelf tool

Write safety

Idempotent, with rollback

Varies by team

Vendor-defined

Legacy systems

In scope, expected

Priced as a risk

Usually unsupported

Permission model

Carried through per user

Often a service account

Their own model

Reusability

Governed tool layer

Project-specific

Closed connector set

Failure handling

Retries, dead letters, backfill

Varies

Support ticket

Ownership

Your code and connectors

Sometimes their framework

Licensed connectors

Based on publicly available information and our own experience of comparable engagements. Generalisations rather than claims about any specific provider. There are good exceptions in every column, and the point is where each model is structurally strong.

The stack we work in.

Systems of record

Read and write, idempotently, with a documented reversal path for every automated action.

Data platform

Where the truth lives, and where the same entity under three names finally gets reconciled.

Integration

However the system exposes itself: modern API, ageing endpoint or a directory of nightly files.

Operations

Retries, replay and backfill, so a failure is recoverable rather than silent and expensive.

How the build runs.

Week 0

Scope

Sessions with the people doing the work. We leave with a written target and a data map.

Week 1 to 2

Prove

A thin slice against your real records, scored on a test set drawn from your own history.

Week 3 to 12

Deploy

Integrations, approval gates, audit logging. Live on one team with a rollback switch.

Ongoing

Hand over

Runbooks, paired on-call and a decision log, until your team changes it without us.

A hand reaching towards a wall of lit panels

Tell us where the re-typing happens.

Forty-five minutes with the people who would build it. No pitch, and a straight answer on whether it is worth building.

Schedule call

Questions

All questions

It is the normal case. SOAP, nightly batches, fixed-width exports and Access databases are all things we have shipped against. We scope them explicitly rather than discovering them in month three.

Then the design changes shape, usually to a reviewed import queue with an approval gate rather than direct automation. Still faster than manual, and safer.

No. If you run MuleSoft, Boomi or similar, we build with it. Replacing working middleware for its own sake is rarely worth it.

Idempotency keys on every write, plus entity resolution where the same thing exists under different names across systems.

You do. They live in your repository with tests and documentation, and there is no licence to keep paying us.