01
Agree the target contract
Before anything is built, we pin down what has to arrive: the fields, the shape, the acceptance criteria, and what counts as a complete load.
← Use cases
Embedded integrations
Embedded and Continuous Integrations
Customer integrations consume delivery capacity and become separately maintained services. Beetl builds and operates them as versioned, monitored data flows.
Source systems
Databases
ERP systems
Files and spreadsheets
Customer-hosted systems
Beetl answer
A versioned, monitored data flow
Problem signals
Getting the first records out of a customer's system is rarely the hard part. A capable engineer can usually manage it in an afternoon. The cost shows up in the months afterwards, when credentials expire, a schema changes without notice, or an incremental load quietly stops picking up deletions.
By then the integration is not really an integration. It is a small application with its own deployment, its own logging, its own failure modes, and usually one person who understands it. Ship a dozen of those and the maintenance load, not the build cost, is what caps how many customers you can onboard.
Beetl takes the part that is genuinely specific to each customer and keeps it explicit: how the source is accessed, the field and value mappings, the business rules that only apply to that account. Everything around it comes from the platform. Credential handling, scheduling, raw data retention, incremental state, validation, deployment, monitoring, and versioning are the same for every flow we operate.
The smallest useful engagement is one source, one destination, and one defined data flow. That is deliberately narrow. It gives both sides a real production result to judge before anything larger gets committed.
1
Integration requests are queued behind roadmap work, and each one costs a sprint you would rather spend elsewhere.
2
Every connector has its own deployment, logging, and support behaviour, so nobody can cover for the person who built it.
3
A customer reports missing records and the first question is which of your integrations is even responsible.
How the work runs
The genuinely custom part stays yours to approve. The operating layer around it is the same for every connector we run.
02
Build the source and the mapping
Source access, incremental behaviour, and field and value mappings become explicit definitions you can read and review rather than logic inside a service.
03
Run it on the platform
Scheduling, retries, monitoring, and versioning come from Beetl rather than from connector-specific code. The next integration reuses the same layer.
What you are left with
The engagement ends with something running in production, not a document describing what should be built.
- A running connector with its source and mapping definitions kept explicit and versioned.
- Ingested data preserved in its source-faithful form, so questions can be answered without re-extracting.
- One operating model across connectors instead of a different answer per integration.
Bring one integration you currently maintain by hand.
Tell us the source system, the target contract, and what has to arrive. We will scope the smallest production data flow and tell you honestly if it is not a fit.
Talk to us