Loading...
Menu
Loading...
n8n, Make and Zapier builds designed for the days when an API times out and a record arrives malformed. Plus custom code for the steps where no-code stops paying.
The first version of an automation nearly always works. Someone connects two apps, the test record goes through, and everybody is pleased. The trouble starts on the day the API returns a 500, or a customer name arrives with a character the downstream system rejects, and the flow stops without telling anyone.
Weeks later somebody notices that a queue has not moved. By then the trust is gone, and rebuilding it is harder than building the automation was. So the engineering that matters is the unglamorous part: retries with backoff, dead letter handling, alerting on failure, and a run log somebody can read.
The other recurring problem is ownership. Automations get built by whoever had time, on their personal account, with credentials nobody else holds. When that person changes role, the automation becomes both essential and untouchable. We build them to be owned by the company.
What we do
From a described process to a running flow with error handling, alerting and documentation, on your infrastructure or ours.
Learn more →Auditing what exists, finding the silent failures, moving credentials into company ownership and adding the monitoring that should have been there.
Where data cannot leave your infrastructure or per-task pricing has stopped making sense at your volume, including the upgrade and backup path.
Orchestration in the visual tool, the awkward step as a small service it calls. Keeps the flow readable without pretending everything fits in a node.
Learn more →First we watch the process as it is done now, including the exceptions. The exceptions are the design, and the person doing the work is the only reliable source for them.
Then we build the smallest version that handles the real path plus the two most common failures, put it in production, and let it run against real volume before extending it.
Everything is documented and owned by the company, with credentials in a shared vault rather than someone's browser. The test is whether a new person can understand and change the flow six months from now.
All three, and we self-host n8n where data residency or cost make that the better answer. The platform matters less than the design. Most broken automations we inherit fail on error handling and retries, not on the tool choice.
No-code wins while the flow is simple, the volume is modest and the logic fits the visual model. It stops paying when you need real branching, complex transforms, versioning or per-run cost control at volume. A common good answer is a hybrid: the orchestration in n8n, the difficult step as a small service it calls.
Yes, and it is a large share of the work. The usual findings are the same: no retry logic, silent failures nobody is alerted to, credentials belonging to someone who has left, and no record of what ran. Those are fixable without starting again.
A single well-defined workflow is usually a small fixed-price engagement. Where a whole process spans several systems it is worth scoping first, because the integration surface, not the automation, drives the effort.
It should tell someone. Every flow we build has a failure path, alerting, and a run log that shows what happened and where it stopped. An automation that fails silently is worse than no automation, because people keep trusting it.
Whether it is a flow to build or one to rescue, a short conversation is usually enough to tell which it is and what it would take.
Describe your workflow