In enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, third-party integrations are essential for tailoring software platforms to fit the specific operational needs of construction businesses and other project-driven organizations.
No ERP platform—regardless of its advertised features—can fully address every requirement on its own.
This is why most ERP environments rely on external applications to support critical functions like time tracking, payroll processing, Davis-Bacon compliance, multi-state sales tax, and commission management.
But not all ERP integrations are created equal, and misunderstanding the differences can lead to inefficiencies, cost overruns, and implementation setbacks.
In this article:
For those looking for an ERP partner, view Ascent Consulting's ERP Assistance and Advisory services.
ERP integrations generally fall into two categories: those developed internally by the ERP vendor and those created by independent third-party software providers.
Native integrations are designed and maintained by the ERP platform developer. These integrations typically align well with the system’s architecture, security model, and update cycle. They’re often promoted as seamless because they exist within the vendor's supported ecosystem.
Third-party ERP applications, by contrast, are created by external software companies that specialize in a particular function, such as payroll or project cost tracking. These tools are integrated into the ERP using either API-based connections or manual data handling. When well-built, they can provide superior functionality and flexibility in areas where the ERP’s core features fall short.
But native doesn’t always mean seamless. Just because an ERP vendor developed a module doesn’t mean it’s intuitive, reliable, or aligned with field operations. In many cases, native modules introduce more constraints than value. A functional integration requires more than a logo match—it demands thoughtful development, real-time syncing, and dependable vendor support.
We've seen well-built third-party applications outperform native ERP modules in reliability, usability, and configurability, especially when they're integrated using robust APIs and maintained with proactive support structures. The real issue isn’t who built it—it’s whether the integration performs reliably in your real-world workflow.
A common misconception in ERP implementation is that the word “integration” always means full automation. That’s rarely the case.
Just because a tool is labeled as “integrated” doesn’t mean it runs automatically. Many so-called integrations still require users to manually initiate data transfers or reconcile records post-import. To choose wisely, you need to understand how data actually moves between systems.
ERP integrations usually fall into one of two technical categories:
Many tools advertised as “automated” integrations are actually manual or semi-manual under the hood. Always ask whether the integration runs on a true API or if someone has to push a button every week.
We recently worked with a mid-sized commercial contractor using a popular cloud-based ERP. They implemented a third-party payroll solution that was marketed as having an "automated sync."
In reality, the sync was a weekly batch file upload—manual and error-prone. If anything went wrong, the entire file was rejected silently. Timecards disappeared. Payroll was delayed. Frustration mounted.
Then, a routine ERP update changed the file format. The integration failed. The ERP vendor blamed the payroll provider. The payroll provider blamed the ERP. No one took ownership.
Our audit confirmed that no true API integration existed—just a brittle file exchange process. The client had no visibility, no error tracking, and no accountability. It was a perfect example of why it's essential to validate the type and quality of integration—not just take claims at face value.
Non-automated tools can still serve a purpose. Sometimes a simple, well-controlled manual process is preferable to a fragile automated one—especially when the process is straightforward and doesn’t require real-time updates.
We’ve helped clients reduce administrative workload dramatically using basic manual transfers into specialized software tools. A 10-minute export/import task can eliminate hours of double entry, spreadsheet workarounds, and rework—while improving data reliability for leadership decision-making.
The standard for a good solution isn't automation alone. It's whether the integration improves the workflow.
When reviewing ERP integrations—whether you're selecting a new platform, implementing one for the first time, or upgrading your existing system—start by comparing the current workflow with the potential improvement. Then evaluate how reliable and supportable the new solution will be.
Step 1: Assess the Current State vs Potential Improvement
Step 2: Evaluate the Integration Design and Support
At Ascent, we’ve worked with dozens of construction companies that continue relying on inefficient processes—or worse, broken integrations—because they’re builders, not IT professionals. And that’s exactly why our ERP Advisory Services exist.
When we provide ERP selection support, we go far beyond feature comparisons. We conduct a comprehensive needs analysis across operations, finance, and field performance, and then match those requirements with systems that can deliver.
We don’t take vendor claims at face value. We:
We provide construction leaders with a clear, detailed roadmap of what the system will do, where it needs help, and what hidden risks exist in the integration layer.
Our goal is simple: to advise and help build ERP ecosystems that are supportable, scalable, and aligned with how you actually run your business—not patched together with assumptions and sales speak.
Construction companies should look beyond feature lists and vendor claims. It's essential to evaluate whether an integration is API-based or relies on manual data transfers, who is responsible for support, how the system handles errors, and whether it can scale with your business.
A well-integrated ERP system should improve workflows, not complicate them.
Not necessarily. While native modules are built by the ERP vendor, they’re not always the best fit for construction operations. In many cases, third-party tools offer superior flexibility and usability—especially when integrated using robust APIs.
The real measure of quality is how well the integration performs in your actual workflow.
API-based integrations sync data automatically and securely in real-time or on a schedule with error handling and traceability. Manual file transfers, by contrast, require human involvement and are more prone to error. While both can be effective, API-based solutions are better suited for dynamic environments that require accuracy, speed, and reliability.
Ascent Consulting’s mission is to Build Better Construction Companies.
We are committed to delivering impressive results in the areas of
profitability, performance and growth.