Service 01 — ¥40,000 JPY · 5 weeks
Know exactly where a new tool would sit in your existing systems
Before committing to any integration, the question that carries the most weight is not what the tool does — it is where it connects, what it touches, and what breaks when it does not behave as expected.
A system you cannot easily replace deserves assessment before anything is connected to it.
What this engagement delivers
A documented picture of the integration, before it is built
At the end of five weeks, you hold a written architecture view — one that shows how a proposed tool would connect to your existing systems, where the data flows, who can access what, and where the connection introduces points of potential failure.
That document stays with you. It is not a sales proposal for further work. It may conclude that a proposed integration should not go ahead — and we consider that a complete and acceptable outcome.
Documented architecture view
A written map of how the proposed connection would sit within your current system landscape — data flows, permission boundaries, dependency chains.
Fragility assessment
An honest account of where the connection would introduce weakness — the scenarios that would require intervention, and how often those conditions arise in practice.
A note on proposals that should not proceed
Where the assessment finds that a proposed connection carries too much risk or too much ongoing cost, that finding is written plainly and explained.
The situation this service addresses is one that many organisations recognise when they see it described.
The situation this is suited to
You have a core system that cannot easily be replaced
Situation A
A tool has already been selected
A vendor has presented a solution. It looks capable. The question of how it connects to what you already have has not yet been worked through in the same level of detail.
Situation B
Internal staff are occupied with operations
The people who know the existing system best are the ones running it day to day. A structured review requires time they do not have and a perspective that is external to the current setup.
Situation C
The cost of a failed integration is significant
When a core system is disrupted, the consequences extend well beyond the integration itself. Getting the assessment right beforehand is considerably less expensive than recovering afterward.
What distinguishes this approach is the scope of what it examines — and what it is willing to conclude.
How the assessment works
We examine the join, not just the components
Each vendor presents their tool in isolation. What matters in practice is the space between that tool and your existing system — the data that passes across it, the permissions that govern it, and the person who confirms that it behaved correctly.
Join diagram — Integration Architecture Review
Existing / cannot be replaced
Access scope defined here
Orb Lab Mesh assessment point
Vendor-supplied
The orange node marks the point where a person examines what is passing between systems and records what was found.
What the assessment covers
- —Data flow between the proposed tool and existing systems
- —Permission boundaries and what the new connection would be able to access
- —Points of failure and how they would manifest in practice
- —Ongoing maintenance requirements once the connection is live
- —Whether the proposed integration should proceed at all
Who participates
The assessment involves both technical staff — those responsible for the existing system — and operational staff who use it daily. Both perspectives are necessary to understand where a connection would introduce problems that a purely technical review would not surface.
We work around the schedules of your team rather than requiring extended blocks of dedicated time.
An engagement runs at a pace that allows careful examination — not the pace of a sales process.
What five weeks looks like
A structured process with a clear output at each stage
Week 1
System mapping
We document what currently exists — the core system, the connections already in place, and the operational processes that depend on them.
Weeks 2–3
Proposed connection review
We examine the vendor documentation, the proposed data flow, and the permission scope of the new tool against the mapped system.
Week 4
Fragility identification
We identify where the connection would introduce risk and discuss the findings with your technical staff before writing them up.
Week 5
Written output
The architecture view, fragility assessment, and any proposal notes are compiled and delivered as a single written document.
After
The document is yours
No further obligation. The findings belong to you and can inform decisions independently of Orb Lab Mesh.
The investment reflects the scope of what is examined — not a starting price for ongoing work.
Investment
One engagement, one price, one written output
Integration Architecture Review
¥40,000 JPY
Five-week engagement · Single payment
The fee covers the full five-week engagement — system mapping, proposed connection review, fragility identification, and the written output. There are no add-ons, no retainer, and no expectation of continued work afterward.
If the assessment concludes that the proposed integration should not proceed, the fee remains the same. That conclusion is part of what you are engaging us to provide.
What is included
- —Documented architecture view of the proposed integration
- —Assessment of where connections would introduce fragility
- —Plain note of any proposals that should not proceed
- —Sessions with your technical and operational staff
- —Review of vendor documentation and proposed data flows
- —Written output delivered in a format your team can use independently
The methodology behind the assessment is grounded in how integration failures actually occur.
How the work is conducted
Grounded in where integration connections actually fail
Integration failures in established organisations tend not to occur at the point of connection itself. They occur at the permission boundaries — when a new tool accesses more than was intended — or at the maintenance layer, when the connection requires ongoing attention that was not factored into the operational workload.
The assessment examines both of these points specifically, in addition to the standard data flow review. This is what distinguishes it from a vendor integration checklist, which tends to confirm that a connection is technically possible without addressing whether it is practically sustainable.
Data handling — this engagement
What you can expect in terms of outcomes
A clear picture of the proposed connection
Regardless of what the assessment concludes, you will have a documented understanding of how the integration would function — one that does not depend on the vendor's own account of it.
Identified points of risk before they become problems
Where fragility exists, it will be named and located — not described in general terms. You will know which specific connections or conditions require attention.
A basis for a decision, not a recommendation to proceed
The output does not push toward any particular outcome. It gives you the information needed to make the decision — and the freedom to decide not to proceed.
An initial conversation is the appropriate place to determine whether this engagement fits your situation.
Our commitment
What we stand behind
Written output, always
The assessment will produce a written document. Not a verbal summary, not a slide deck — a document that remains with you and can be used to inform decisions after the engagement ends.
Independent of the vendor
Orb Lab Mesh has no commercial relationship with the vendors whose tools we assess. Our findings are not influenced by any party other than the organisation that engaged us.
No obligation to proceed
An initial conversation about whether this service fits your situation carries no charge and no expectation of proceeding. You can ask questions and decide at your own pace.
Starting is straightforward — a conversation first, then a clear path from there.
How to begin
Three steps from here to engagement
Step 01
Send a message
Use the contact form or email us at info@orb-labmesh.com. Describe your situation briefly — what system you have, what tool you are considering, and any specific concerns you hold.
Step 02
Initial conversation
We will respond within two business days to schedule a short conversation. This is where we assess whether the engagement suits your situation and answer any questions you have about the process.
Step 03
Engagement begins
If both sides agree to proceed, we agree on a start date and schedule the first working sessions with your technical and operational staff. The five-week period runs from that date.
Two other services may suit a different stage of the same decision.
Other services
If a different engagement fits your situation
¥35,000 JPY — 7 weeks
Email and Correspondence Handling
Setting up assisted handling of high-volume incoming correspondence — classification, routing, and reply drafting — with a human review step retained before anything is sent.
¥29,000 JPY — 3 weeks
Pilot Evaluation Engagement
Independent evaluation of a pilot you have already run — examining whether the measured result supports wider deployment and what the running cost would be at full scale.
Integration Architecture Review
A considered look at the connection, before it is made
If you are approaching an integration decision and would like an independent assessment of what it would involve, an initial conversation is a reasonable place to start.
Start a conversation