Managing ERP integrations: who owns your connection estate?
Six weeks after go-live, the IT manager called
The closing meeting was over. The implementation partner had handed over the documentation. The system was live. Six weeks later, the IT manager called.
An integration between the ERP and the e-commerce platform had stopped passing orders through for three days, a situation we recognise from several projects. Customers had placed orders. The inventory system had never received them. Only when an account manager called a customer about an expected delivery did the problem surface.
The first question the IT manager asked was telling: “Who is actually responsible for this?”
There was no answer. The ERP vendor said the integration fell outside its scope. The party that built the integration said the handover was complete. The IT department had never had interface monitoring in its remit. Three weeks after the incident, there was still no owner.
That is the real risk of ERP integrations after go-live. Not that connections break. That no one is formally responsible when they do.
What is integration ownership?
Integration ownership is the formal assignment of responsibility for the functioning, the management and the authorisation of changes to connections between systems, including monitoring and incident handling.
This goes beyond “who built the integration”. Builders deliver and move on. Ownership is what remains: the role that watches whether a connection still works as intended, that picks up signals when it does not, and that decides who is allowed to change anything.
An independent ERP adviser with integration expertise distinguishes three ownership layers, each of which must be assigned separately:
Technical ownership: who monitors the connection, who resolves incidents, who manages the API keys and connection credentials?
Functional ownership: who assesses whether the connection passes the right data, who validates the business logic, who approves changes on their merits?
Architecture ownership: who safeguards the connection estate as a whole, keeps track of which connections exist, and decides which ones are retired or replaced?
In most organisations we support, none of the three layers is explicitly assigned after go-live.
Four patterns that make integration management fail structurally
Drawing on our experience with 265+ specialists in ERP projects for manufacturers, wholesalers and service providers, we recognise four patterns that recur structurally in organisations with post-go-live connection problems.
1. The handover was the finish line
Many implementation projects end with a formal handover of connections. The project closes, the documentation is delivered, the client signs for receipt. What is rarely handed over at that moment: the operational knowledge of what goes wrong when a connection stalls.
The consultant who built the connection knows which exception situations the system can encounter. The builder knows which API calls are vulnerable to vendor version updates. That knowledge disappears at handover. What stays behind is an acceptance document.
For the organisation, management begins at precisely that moment. But no one is prepared for it.
2. No monitoring, no signal
A connection that fails does not always raise an error. Sometimes records are silently skipped. Sometimes a batch process stalls without an error log. Sometimes data does pass through, but a field is missing. That missing field only becomes relevant a week later, in a booking, a report or a delivery.
We see that most connections are in use without active monitoring. There is no alert when a connection processes fewer records than expected. There is no threshold that triggers a notification on deviation. The connection is on the list of “what we built”, not on the list of “what we monitor daily”.
The first signs that a connection is faltering then do not come from a system. They come from an employee on the floor who notices something is off.
3. Changes outside the owners’ view
ERP systems change. Vendors release updates. Business processes are adjusted. New staff add fields or change workflows. Each of those changes can disrupt an existing connection.
What we structurally miss in management organisations is a formal change process for connections. Who may adjust a connection? Who assesses the impact on connected systems? Who documents the change? In practice, a developer adjusts a connection at a department’s request, without the IT manager or functional administrator knowing.
The result: connections are changed without impact analysis, and the next incident is the first sign that something changed.
4. The connection estate is no one’s domain
Ask three people in your organisation how many connections your ERP estate has. You will get three different answers. The IT manager knows the technical connections built during the project. The operations manager knows the connections that play a daily role in their process. The director knows the connections that were in the project plan.
That the overview is missing is more than an administrative problem. Every undocumented connection is an uncontrolled risk. Every connection without an owner is a connection that no one claims during an incident.
In our project experience, organisations count considerably more connections at a first integration inventory than they expected. The difference lies in ad-hoc connections, outdated links that still run, and script-based integrations that were never formally documented as connections.
Integration risk check: five questions for your organisation
Use the questions below to test your current situation. Every question for which you have no direct answer is a risk signal. See also our further explanation of connection types and integration choices.
Question 1: Does every connection in your estate have a named owner?
This is the basic question. Not “is there a team responsible for it”, but: is there one person or role with final responsibility for the functioning of precisely this connection? That owner has monitoring access, is the escalation point for incidents and the authorisation point for changes.
Question 2: Do you know how many records your connections process daily?
And do you have an alert when that number deviates significantly? Passive monitoring, only reacting when a notification comes in, is insufficient. Active monitoring flags deviations before they have business impact. If the answer is “we look when something is wrong”, you are behind the facts.
Question 3: Is there a formal change process for connection adjustments?
Who may adjust a connection? Who assesses the impact on connected systems before a change is made? Without an approval process, connections are changed outside the owners’ view. A vendor API update or a field change in the ERP can disrupt a connection unnoticed.
Question 4: Is your connection estate documented in a way that is kept current?
A connection document from the implementation project is not a living document. If systems or processes change without the documentation keeping pace, the overview is a risk, not an asset. Current documentation also includes which systems are connected, which way the data flows, what business logic sits in the connection, and who the owner is.
Question 5: Do you know which connections are business-critical and which you can switch off without operational impact?
Prioritisation determines how you respond during an incident. If you do not know which connections drive your order flow, financial processing or inventory management, you cannot act quickly and precisely during an outage. That distinction, critical versus supporting, should be recorded in your management organisation.
Scoring: fewer than three questions with a direct, well-founded “yes” indicates that your connection estate has a governance gap that deserves attention.
Internal, hybrid or external: the decision model for integration management
How you organise integration management depends on three factors: the complexity of your connection estate, the available internal expertise and the rate of change of your systems. See also our explanation of ERP integrations and system connections for broader context.
| Model | When suitable | Risks of this model |
|---|---|---|
| Fully internal | Stable estate, fewer than ten connections, internal developer available with sufficient bandwidth | Knowledge concentrated in one employee; vulnerable to departure or long absence |
| Hybrid | Growing estate, mix of standard and custom connections, periodic complex changes | Unclear boundaries of responsibility between internal and external; risk of gaps at handovers |
| External management | Complex integration architecture, multiple platforms, frequently changing systems or high availability requirements | Dependence on an external party; knowledge transfer at a change of manager needs attention |
None of the three models is by definition the right choice. What is structurally better than any model: an explicit choice, formally recorded, with clear agreements on handover protocols, escalation paths and documentation management.
When should you take action?
There are concrete signals that ownership and management of your integration estate need attention:
- Two or more connections in your estate have no named owner
- A recent system or vendor update disrupted a connection without you signalling it in time
- Someone made a connection adjustment without formal authorisation
- During an incident, your organisation could not quickly determine who was responsible for the fix
- Your connection documentation is older than the last system change in your ERP or a connected system
Action is urgent when your business-critical processes, your order flow, your financial processing or your inventory management, depend on connections without active monitoring or formal ownership.
When is this not urgent?
If your connection estate is stable, comprises fewer than five connections, all connections have a named owner with active monitoring, and your documentation is current, then there is no acute urgency for an external inventory.
In that case, do run an annual check: are your systems and connections growing along, are owners still employed and active in that role, and is the documentation updated after the latest changes?
Why integration management is a conviction for us
Our work is, first and foremost, human work. Behind every connection estate that stalls there are people: an IT manager trying to resolve an incident without knowing who to turn to, an operations manager whose order flow has stopped while the cause stays out of sight, a director who, three days after the incident, still has no answer to the question of what exactly went wrong.
It is not the technology that fails. The organisation around the technology fails.
We work with 265+ specialists in ERP projects for manufacturers, wholesalers and service providers. We see structurally that integration management drops off the list at project handover. The project closes, the consultant leaves, and the connection runs live without anyone owning it.
That is why our specialists ask one question at every project: who owns this connection twelve months from now? And if the answer is “we will sort that out later”, then that is the first risk to address, not the last.
Independence here is not our selling point. It is the reason our advice can be trusted. We have no stake in a particular integration tool, in a broader management contract than necessary, or in more connections than your organisation needs. Our only interest is a connection estate that works and an organisation that knows who is responsible when it does not.
Frequently asked questions about ERP integration management
What is the difference between integration management and project management of connections?
Integration management starts after go-live and covers structural oversight: monitoring, incident handling and authorisation of changes. Project management focuses on the implementation phase, from design to delivery.
Project management ends at handover; integration management begins precisely there. Many organisations managed their connection estate well during the build, but appointed no successor for the structural management phase. That is the moment risks accumulate.
How do I know how many connections my ERP estate has?
Your ERP estate usually has considerably more connections than you expect. Start with an inventory via your ERP vendor, your integration platform and your IT department separately, then add the lists together.
The difference lies in ad-hoc connections, outdated links that still run, and script-based integrations that were never formally documented as a connection.
Should integration management be internal or can it be outsourced?
Integration management can be organised fully externally, hybrid or internally, depending on your estate complexity and internal capacity. The choice of mode matters less than its explicitness.
An undocumented internal management arrangement is more vulnerable than a clearly contracted external management model. Record the ownership split, document escalation paths and make incident responsibility clear, regardless of the model.
When is an independent integration risk check worthwhile?
An independent integration risk check is worthwhile after any go-live without a formal management plan for connections, when your connection estate grows through new systems or acquisitions, and in preparation for a next ERP migration.
A check of one to three days gives you insight into risk levels, ownership gaps and prioritisation for management. That is the information that lets you make a well-founded choice about the management model.
Let’s talk through your connection estate
Do you know who owns your ERP connections? And does that owner have the tools, the information and the mandate to actually carry that ownership?
If the answer is “not sure”, then that is exactly the reason for an orientation conversation. With no obligations, and with a concrete picture of where your organisation stands: how many connections you have, which are business-critical, how ownership is arranged now and what a sensible next step would be.
Our integration specialists regularly carry out an independent integration risk check as a starting point for organisations that want to get a grip on their connection estate. That is a practical first step, not a binding engagement.
Read more about our approach to integrations and architecture or contact us directly via erpcompany.nl/contact/.