Who this is for
Teams whose existing system has become the bottleneck: throughput ceilings, brittle integrations, an identity layer that blocks every new channel, or a batch pipeline nobody is willing to touch.
The difference
In regulated systems, an integration is judged on its worst day. I plan around failure, reconciliation and audit evidence first, then change the system in small, reversible steps so that no single release carries the whole migration.
How an engagement runs
Read the system
A short audit of the real bottleneck: traces, queue depths, failure modes, and the integration seams that keep breaking.
Agree the target
A written architecture with the migration path spelled out, so the team knows what changes, in what order, and what stays untouched.
Change it incrementally
Strangler-style migration behind stable interfaces, with reconciliation and a rollback path at every step.
Prove and hand over
Load tests against the new path, documented operational procedures, and a team that can run it without me.
What you receive
- A written architecture and migration plan your team agreed to
- Small changes, each one reversible
- Reconciliation and audit evidence for every integration path
- Load and failure testing before anything is promoted
- A written runbook for operating and extending the system
- Weekly written progress notes throughout the engagement
Case studies
Claims intake and EDI reconciliation for US health plans
Every claim file traced from SFTP drop to payer acknowledgement, across several US health plans with their own rules.
Customer identity and transaction signing for a retail bank
One customer identity kept consistent across four banking systems, with half-finished changes undone automatically.
Let's look at your system.
Bring one problem. In 30 minutes we'll see what it would take, and whether I'm the right person for it.