I love a good puzzle.

There is something satisfying about lining up the pieces and continually assembling the image bit by bit.

Puzzles require patience, organization and strategy.

The same can be said for technology integration. When done carefully, integrations connect systems and data to form a unified whole. But without care, it becomes a frustrating mess.

Definition of Integration

Having the opportunity to lead a technology company whose core value proposition depended on creating automation across processes based on deep integrationsI have seen both the benefits and challenges of integrations in our business.

To begin, let's clarify what integration means.

For many firms, integration means pulling data, all data, from System A to System B. But some technology companies use “integration” as a buzzword when all they offer is a single sign-on (the ability to successfully logged into System B via System A).

This discrepancy creates unrealistic expectations.

True integration goes beyond single sign-on by synchronizing data and actions across platforms. When executed well, integrations provide tremendous value. But they require diligence and coordination, like putting together a puzzle.

Common Integration Pitfalls

In my experience helping firms take advantage of integration and automation, we've run into a few roadblocks time and time again:

Resistance to change

Firms often want new technology to bend to current processes, rather than optimizing processes to take advantage of the technology's capabilities. This is a normal bias as people are not inclined to change. People tend to believe that the way we do things works. And despite the prospect of a better way, we don't know that way, so we're tired of it. So we by default want to keep our ways exactly the same as we've done forever.

Data Inconsistency

Despite advances in AI and large language models, the ability to read people's minds has not been developed. When advisors use CRMs and inputs inconsistently, integrations fail to come together. IN Benjamin, a significant challenge our clients and prospects faced was keeping up-to-date and active connections between external accounts and their scheduling software. This issue, prevalent in financial services, stems from a lack of standardized processes for integrating accounts. Each bank has unique APIs and authentication methods, forcing aggregation platforms like Plaid and Yodlee to tailor their solutions to each bank individually, rather than connecting through a unified system. This results in significant management costs. For advisors this leads to gaps in financial planning data due to integration issues. Europe has tackled this problem by standardizing bank APIs, driving innovation and smoother data integration by financial institutions. The US, with its largest and most diverse banking system, including numerous credit unions and local banks, has yet to adopt such standardization, impeding similar progress.

“The Curse of Knowledge”

After going through this process for years, we take basic steps for granted. I always compare this to breaking down, specifically, the steps of making a PB&J sandwich. When I ask a group to write down the steps, each person has different answers. Each answer is missing basic steps like thawing the bread and opening the drawer (for the knife to spread jelly and peanut butter). Although these steps seem low, they are necessary to recognize and document. Why? Because knowing each step helps to understand where efficiency can be achieved during the execution of the process. Despite being “known” steps, these steps are necessary to complete the action of building a PB&J. And so documenting them helps to identify what to automate.

No dedicated resources focused on the technology ecosystem – Too often, the role of managing, monitoring and implementing technologies falls to someone as a secondary or tertiary task. It is not their most important focus. And the task was certainly not an “income” generating task. With no single owner, integration falls apart between isolated teams.

Strategies to overcome challenges

Based on these common pitfalls, here are some ideas to enable integration success:

Leadership Change

Teams resist changing processes and want technology to match them. This is natural as people gravitate towards the familiar.

Leaders must lead an organizational culture change that values ​​adaptation, transparency and learning. Instead of implementing dated processes, leadership should be the model to explore new solutions. They must involve teams in decision-making and allow for failure in the way of efficiency. Rewards and promotions should focus on flexibility – welcoming new tools that improve best practices rather than forcing technology into past comfort zones. Leaders with vision inspire change, while their absence creates resistance.

Information Governance and Controls

Inconsistent data undermines integration capabilities. Rapid growth leaves little time to optimize systems, and isolated teams use tools in different ways.

Teams should seek to assign an expert to overhaul information flows, establishing standardized data entry, labels, formats, and system workflows. A committee that includes departments can adjust guidelines as new tools enter the ecosystem. Required fields and deductions limit ad-hoc entries, supporting sustainability as the business scales.

Draft it

It's natural for us to overlook simple sub-steps that technology can handle. Experts in certain roles suffer the “curse of knowledge”, taking the basics for granted. Leadership should guide teams in meticulously designing workflows—detailing what data is collected, entered, and shared at each stage. By noting which systems affect each stage of the process, it clarifies where to place integration points to relax manual duplication of work.

When working with teams, we would work to break down their process into a flowchart to see each individual step, the information needed within the steps, and the technologies we would be interacting with. You can see a simplified example here.

Set ownership

If integration is not anyone's primary responsibility, it will fall through the cracks. This role is not a primary revenue-generating role, so leaders tend to devalue it.

Overcome this challenge by hiring or developing a dedicated Chief Technology Officer. Let them thoroughly design the current infrastructure, build expertise across all tools, liaise between stakeholders, drive benefits realization and serve as an evangelist through training. Treat integration as a critical building block. The return is exponential.

With deliberate strategy, the pieces of the puzzle click together. Integration drives systems and information flow. But this requires diligence. Like a challenging puzzle, teams can enjoy the satisfaction of continually connecting those pieces.

Matt Reiner is managing partner of Capital Investment Advisors.