Engineering solution
We connect the layers of manufacturing IT that usually communicate through spreadsheets and re-typing: machine controls to historians, historians and quality data to MES functions, and production events to ERP. Scope includes integration architecture, data mapping, middleware or custom services, and the testing that makes the connections trustworthy.
Most plants already own the pieces — PLCs, a historian or SCADA, an ERP, maybe an MES — but the pieces do not speak. Orders are re-typed at the line, production counts are keyed back into ERP, and quality lives in isolated files.
Integration engineering closes those gaps deliberately: define which system owns each fact, map the data both directions, and implement robust interfaces — standard connectors where they exist, engineered services where they do not.
Scope
Project process
Document systems, data, and every manual bridge between them.
Decide system-of-record, direction, and failure behavior per interface.
Deliver one flow at a time, starting where manual effort or error is worst.
Prove behavior when a system is down — queues, retries, and reconciliation.
Hand over monitored interfaces and extend to the next flows on evidence of value.
| Data | System of record | What happens when two systems own it |
|---|---|---|
| Orders and schedule | ERP | The plant runs to a schedule the business does not recognise |
| Recipes and parameters | MES, or the controller where that is the agreed source | Product is made to two different definitions |
| Process values and events | Historian | Trends disagree with the reports drawn from them |
| Machine state and counts | The controller, historised | OEE is calculated twice and gives two answers |
| Quality results | LIMS or MES | Release decisions get made on stale data |
| Maintenance history | CMMS | Work is recorded in one place and planned from another |
We do not publish fixed prices: these are the factors that determine effort. A scoped proposal follows the technical fit review.
Integration cannot settle a definition dispute. Where two departments genuinely disagree on what a metric means, that decision is theirs to make; the engagement surfaces it early rather than encoding one side's answer silently.
Last reviewed by Geek Engineering senior engineering review.
No. Many plants get their largest early wins from targeted flows — automatic production counts to ERP, order download to the line, or historian-backed OEE — without buying an MES platform. Where a full MES is justified, the same integration groundwork supports it.
Usually the data lacks context: tags without asset models, no product or batch linkage, no defined consumers. We restructure the context model around the questions the plant actually asks, then deliver the reports and dashboards that make the historian earn its license.
Failure behavior is specified per interface before implementation: buffering and store-and-forward where data must not be lost, clear staleness indication where displays must not mislead, and documented reconciliation for anything that queued during the outage.
Both, by design. The work sits exactly on that boundary, and the architecture phase includes both teams' requirements: OT's determinism and uptime constraints, IT's security and lifecycle standards. Interfaces that ignore either side do not survive.
Describe your equipment, objectives, timeline, and constraints. We will confirm whether this solution fits — and say so plainly if it does not.
Get a Quote