API integration services for the systems your business runs on

Better Software scopes, builds and maintains custom API integrations for operating businesses and product teams. We start with the handoff that needs to work, check what the source and destination allow, and agree how to prove the result.

A customer changes an account detail, but the operations application still has the old value. A new order reaches one system and needs manual entry in another. A connector runs, yet nobody can explain which records completed or who should resolve the exceptions.

The immediate request is often “connect these two systems.” The work underneath is deciding which system owns each field, how identities match, what happens during an outage and how the receiving team knows its records are current enough to use.

We help engineering and operations leaders turn that problem into a bounded implementation. Bring a specific handoff, the systems involved and an example of what goes wrong. We can assess whether configuration, a supported connector or custom engineering is the right next step.

The first scope should name the applications and the change that must arrive. That might be an approved account update moving from your product into an operations application, or a completed order creating the right record in a downstream system.

We define the fields, mapping rules, identifiers, direction and acceptable delay with your team. We also separate historical backfill from ongoing updates. Loading existing records and keeping later changes correct have different failure cases.

Two-way synchronization needs an explicit conflict policy. If both applications can change the same field, “keep them in sync” leaves a business decision unresolved. One-way delivery or ownership by field may be enough. We choose the smallest approach that supports the workflow.

The initial scope is a named handoff with agreed acceptance evidence. It is not a commitment to connect every tool in the company.

The design depends on the applications. An API that exposes today's records may support current-state repair without preserving every intermediate event. A webhook may need a separate recovery process. For example, GitHub documents that it does not automatically redeliver failed webhook deliveries. We check the actual provider contract before promising recovery behavior.

Access is part of feasibility. The customer's plan, permissions, vendor approval and API limits can constrain the work. If a required capability is unavailable, we narrow the workflow or explain why it cannot be delivered through the supported interface.

The following is an illustrative design, not a customer case or a tested integration.

A SaaS application owns customer contact details. An internal operations application uses those details to coordinate service. The proposed integration sends approved contact changes in one direction; the operations application continues to own service notes.

The source customer ID, including its organization scope, maps to a destination record. Each change passes validation before a write. The operating view distinguishes a received change from a confirmed destination update. A separate comparison looks for expected changes that never entered the receiver's history, where the source provides the evidence needed to do so.

Suppose a controlled test contains 100 distinct changes. The receiver records 98 and applies 95; three are rejected and two never reach it. Receipt coverage is 98%, while confirmed application is 95%. The review needs an explanation for each unresolved change before the team accepts the handoff.

Those numbers are hypothetical, with one intended destination update per source change and no approved exclusions. In a real workflow, filters, combined updates and multiple destination actions change the expected set. We document that contract rather than treating a delivery count as proof of correctness.

Our supporting guide explains how to find API changes that never reached an integration, including comparison boundaries and proposed acceptance cases.

A successful API call is one piece of evidence. The review should also show the intended destination state, the handling of invalid input and what the operator sees when delivery fails.

For the selected workflow, we agree tests for repeated changes, an unavailable destination, a rejected record and a change missing from delivery. Where a response is lost after an action may have succeeded, recovery must account for that uncertainty before repeating a consequential action.

We record what can be repaired automatically, what needs a person and what the available interfaces cannot establish. The handover names the owner of unresolved work and the procedure for investigating it. Acceptance applies to the agreed scope and test evidence, not a guarantee that external systems never fail.

This is a fit when a consequential workflow spans existing applications, the supported connector leaves a specific gap, and someone owns both the business decision and ongoing operation.

A configuration change or standard connector may be sufficient for a simple handoff. We assess those options before adding a service your team will need to maintain. If you need a customer-facing interface as well, that is an additional product scope to evaluate separately.

Budget depends on the interfaces, mapping complexity, backfill, failure handling and ongoing responsibility. See our current team and pricing approach for engagement context. An integration estimate needs the actual workflow and access constraints.