API development
Direct integrations against systems that don't have a pre-built connector — including internal or industry-specific platforms — built and tested against the actual API rather than a generic template.
Most integration work doesn't need custom development — a well-supported connector or an iPaaS platform like Celigo covers the majority of common ERP, CRM, and SaaS connections. Custom development is what happens when one of those assumptions breaks: the system doesn't have a pre-built connector, the business logic is too specific for a template, or the data volume and transformation requirements go beyond what point-and-configure tooling was designed for.
In practice that covers a fairly wide range of work — building against an API directly when no connector exists, writing middleware that sits between two or more platforms and handles logic neither system natively supports, scripting data transformations that reshape records as they move between systems, and automating manual processes that have historically depended on someone doing them by hand on a schedule.
The common thread isn't the technology stack, it's the situation: a real business requirement that the standard tools in the market don't cleanly solve.
Custom development work tends to fall into a handful of recurring categories, whether the underlying systems are ERP, CRM, or something more specialized.
Direct integrations against systems that don't have a pre-built connector — including internal or industry-specific platforms — built and tested against the actual API rather than a generic template.
A dedicated layer between multiple systems that owns the logic no single platform should have to — routing, sequencing, retries, and business rules that span more than two endpoints.
Reshaping records as they move between systems with mismatched formats, field structures, or units — handling the edge cases a straight field-to-field mapping can't cover.
Purpose-built scripts and small applications that replace manual, repetitive work — the process someone has been running by hand on a schedule because nothing off-the-shelf fit it.
Custom-built integrations carry a different risk profile than configuring a standard connector, and it's worth being direct about it: you're taking on something that has to be designed well, tested against real data and edge cases, and documented clearly enough that it doesn't become a black box the moment the person who built it moves on.
That's less an argument against custom development than it is a reason to be deliberate about when to reach for it. Building custom against a system that actually has a solid connector available is usually the wrong call — it adds maintenance burden without adding capability. Building custom when the alternative is a person manually reconciling spreadsheets every week is usually the right one.
The projects that hold up over time are the ones scoped around the actual business process, not just the technical connection — built with monitoring and error handling from the start, and documented well enough that the logic is legible to someone other than the person who wrote it.
Custom development is the last resort in our own process, not the first instinct — we start by checking whether a standard connector or platform configuration actually solves the problem, and only reach for custom code when it genuinely doesn't. That discipline matters because the cheapest integration to maintain is the one you didn't have to build from scratch.
When custom work is the right call, it's handled by the same team that does our Celigo, Power BI, and Workday Adaptive Planning integration work — so the custom pieces are designed to fit alongside the platform-based integrations you already run, not as a separate, disconnected system with its own maintenance burden.
When a system doesn't have a pre-built connector, when the business logic is specific enough that a template can't express it, or when the data volume, latency, or transformation requirements fall outside what an off-the-shelf integration app supports. In those cases, building against the underlying API directly is usually the more reliable path.
API integrations between systems that don't have native connectors, middleware layers that sit between multiple platforms, custom data transformation and mapping logic, scheduled or event-driven automation, and one-off scripts that replace manual, repetitive processes.
Yes. Alongside integration work, we build internal tools, automation utilities, and purpose-built applications when an off-the-shelf product doesn't fit the process — usually smaller, focused tools rather than large custom platforms.
It comes down to fit. If a system has a well-supported connector and the logic is largely standard, an iPaaS platform is usually faster to implement and easier to maintain. Custom development makes more sense when the system, data volume, or business rules fall outside what a platform's templates and configuration options can reasonably support.
That depends on the engagement — some clients want us to stay on for ongoing support and monitoring, others want documentation and a clean handoff to an in-house team. We scope that upfront rather than assuming either default.
It starts with understanding the systems and data involved, mapping the actual business process rather than just the technical endpoints, then building and testing against real data before go-live. Timelines vary widely depending on scope, from a few weeks for a single API integration to longer for multi-system builds with complex transformation logic.
Tell us what you're trying to connect or automate — we'll tell you honestly whether it needs custom work or not.