Most integration difficulty is not technical plumbing but disagreement: what counts as an order, when revenue is recognised, which customer hierarchy is authoritative. Until those are settled, connected data simply distributes the disagreement faster.
Where technically available and relevant, operational and machine-generated data can be brought into the same structure — production events, cycle information, alarms and job context. Feasibility is assessed per environment rather than assumed.
The objective is to make what you already own more useful. Replacement is recommended only where a system genuinely cannot support the operating requirement.
Security, access control, hosting, authentication, audit requirements and data handling are defined with the client based on the selected architecture and operating environment.
No. Xylm works with existing ERP, spreadsheets, databases and operational systems. The integration layer sits above them rather than replacing them.
That is determined during assessment. We review the systems you run, the access and export options each provides, and design the integrations required for the agreed scope — rather than claiming universal compatibility upfront.
Spreadsheets are treated as a legitimate source. Many important business definitions live there. We formalise the ones that matter and reduce dependence on the ones that create risk.
It depends on data availability, source-system access, scope and governance requirements. A focused first phase is defined after the diagnostic and architecture assessment.
Through explicit master-data structure, agreed definitions, validation rules and visible exception reporting — so gaps are surfaced rather than silently averaged away.