The choice depends on supplier capabilities, request limits and acceptable business delay. A price list may be suitable for scheduled updates, while an order workflow may need a more immediate notification. We do not describe periodic transfers as real-time synchronisation. We also check whether the required interface is included in your existing supplier plan.
| Method | Purpose | Key condition |
|---|
| API | Transfer of defined data or actions | Appropriate permissions, interface and provider limits |
| Webhook | Notification of a system event | The provider must support the required event |
| Scheduled import | Data updates at defined intervals | Agreed frequency and retry handling |
Integration within an existing system
Where the existing system offers a suitable API, extension mechanism or other supported interface, we can implement the integration within that environment. We first check provider restrictions, available permissions and the effect of updates on custom code. This approach suits a well-defined data flow whose status and failures can be reliably monitored using the existing system’s facilities.
An intermediary system connecting several solutions
When several platforms are connected or their data structures differ substantially, we can build a separate intermediary system. It centralises field mapping, data transformation, transfer queues, error handling and retries. For example, a shop submits an order, the intermediary converts it to the format required by accounting, and the resulting status is returned to the place where the employee needs to see it.
An intermediary does not remove source-API or provider restrictions. It also needs hosting, secure access, logs and maintenance. We recommend it when clearer flow management and future extension justify an additional component. Both options are compared, with responsibility for operating each part made explicit.