PDS Consulting / Bundles / Build + Run
Build + Run Bundle
The same team that designs and builds your integrations should be the team that runs them — because most integration failures happen 6 to 18 months after go-live, not at launch. The Build + Run Bundle packages Systems Integration with Integration Support as a single procurement: one architect, one team, one accountable owner from architecture through year three of operations. No vendor handoff. No context gap. No finger-pointing when something breaks.
At a glance
- Includes
- Systems Integration (Build) + Integration Support (Managed Services) — as one program
- Best for
- Mid-market teams buying a non-trivial integration build who will own the system for 3+ years
- Shape
- One-time Build engagement + ongoing monthly retainer (run side)
- Sponsors
- CIO / IT Director (build + run); Service Operations for ongoing
- Pricing
- Quote, on scope — with a transparent continuity discount on the run-side retainer.
Integration fails at the handoff, not at launch.
Every failed integration programme has the same post-mortem. The build went well. The integration went live. Six months later something broke — and the team that designed it had moved on. The MSP that took over the runbook had no architectural context. The buyer was stuck paying two vendors to point at each other. The bundle exists because integration systems fail when data patterns evolve, source systems upgrade, or volume grows — all months or years after the build team has left. Keeping architectural context with operational responsibility prevents that pattern.
Does any of this sound familiar?
- You paid to have an integration built. It went live, looked fine — and then broke six months later. The consultancy that built it doesn't return calls about something they delivered a year ago.
- Your managed-services provider didn't build the system. They monitor it, but every time something breaks, they say "that's an architecture issue, not a support issue." Two vendors, two phone numbers, no answer.
- Internal IT is at capacity. There is nobody on your team who can credibly own a new integration end-to-end — and that's not going to change.
- The board has asked who owns this system in year three. You don't have a good answer.
- You're buying a CRM or ERP integration as part of a larger programme. The implementation partner doesn't do managed services. You'll need to figure out the run side separately — and you've been through that before.
Two engagements, one continuous team.
The build engagement designs and implements the integration architecture. The run engagement monitors and maintains it. Same architect, same team — the transition is a handoff, not a vendor change.
Build
Systems Integration
Integration architecture design, platform setup, flow build, testing, cutover, and a 30-day stabilisation period. Monitoring hooks and operational runbooks are produced during build — not after — with the run team in the room. The build engagement produces a documented, production-ready system with the operational foundation already in place.
Run
Integration Support
Daily monitoring, incident response, performance tuning, change management, and quarterly health reviews — starting at go-live plus 30 days, once the stabilisation handoff is complete. The team taking over is the same team that built and stabilised the system. Architectural context carries forward. Incident response is faster because the run team already knows why decisions were made.
How it runs — a structured value handoff.
The programme moves in a straight line — architecture through stabilisation through ongoing operations. The value compounds at each stage because the team carries full context forward.
01 · Joint kickoff
Single statement of work covers both engagements. Sponsor alignment on long-term integration ownership is established before any build begins. Run-team architect is introduced at kickoff.
02 · Build
Architecture sprint, flow design, flow build, testing, and cutover. Monitoring hooks and runbook templates are designed during build — not as post-cutover deliverables. Run team observes later build phases to absorb context before formal handoff.
03 · Stabilisation
30-day hypercare period, jointly delivered by build and run teams. Incidents handled together. Runbooks finalised against real production behaviour. Performance baselines established. Production accountability transfers at the end of stabilisation, not at cutover.
04 · Run
Run engagement takes primary responsibility. Monthly cadence: incident review, performance review, change requests. Quarterly health review. The bundle continuity discount applies for the first 12 months of the run retainer post-handoff.
Build-to-run transition. The 30-day stabilisation period is jointly delivered — both teams active, incidents handled together, runbooks verified against live behaviour. Production responsibility transfers formally at the end of stabilisation, not at the moment of cutover. This is the discipline that makes the handoff clean: the run team is not reading a document about a system they've never touched — they've been in the room since Phase 1.
What the bundle delivers that separate engagements don't.
- Build-to-run continuity — same architect, same integration team, same runbook patterns. The post-go-live "your team lost context" failure mode doesn't happen.
- Runbooks designed during build, not after — monitoring patterns are produced with the run team while build decisions are being made, not as a post-cutover document that may not match reality.
- Single accountable owner for the integration system — one phone number, no finger-pointing between build vendor and run vendor when something breaks.
- Lower architectural drift — when changes are needed, the run team can scope and execute without re-paying for architectural rediscovery.
- A transparent continuity discount on the first 12 months of the run retainer, reflecting real shared infrastructure and the absence of onboarding cost when the run team already knows the system.
What you're aiming at.
- Mean time to incident detection: under the per-flow target set during build.
- Mean time to incident resolution: significantly faster than industry MSP averages, because the run team has architectural context from day one.
- Silent failures caught by monitoring before customers notice — not discovered days later.
- Change request turnaround faster than separately-vendored scenarios — architectural discovery is already done.
- Total integration platform cost of ownership lower than building and handing off to a generic managed-services provider.
Outcomes are what this bundle is built to deliver, grounded in the constituent services' design and the continuity discipline that ties them together. As PDS Build + Run engagements close, this section gets measured numbers.
Who it's for.
- Teams buying a Multi-Flow Package or Build Programme — non-trivial integration scope where operational continuity matters. This is the default path for those buyers.
- Organisations that will own and operate the integration system for 3+ years, with ongoing data volumes, M&A activity, or system change that will require the architecture to evolve.
- IT leadership (CIO, IT Director, VP Engineering) as sponsor — or a Service Operations function with explicit responsibility for integration monitoring post-go-live.
- Often triggered by a failed prior build where the previous vendor disappeared at go-live, an internal team that's at capacity, or a new CIO mandate for integration architecture with ongoing operational accountability.
- Especially strong fit when the integration scope is inside a larger programme — Quote-to-Cash, Service Operations, ERP implementation — where no other partner is accountable for the run side.
When it's not the bundle.
- Single-flow, low-criticality integrations — a standalone Single Flow Build is the right scope, not a managed retainer.
- Clients with a mature internal integration team who can credibly own ongoing monitoring — they only need the build engagement and a documented handoff.
- Buyers committed to routing managed services through an existing incumbent MSP — we'll sell the build engagement, work with your MSP during stabilisation, and hand off documented runbooks.
- Pre-revenue or very early-stage companies where integration is a one-time setup, not an ongoing operational concern — the retainer structure doesn't fit yet.
Only need help with one side? A short scoping call is usually enough to tell whether the bundle or a standalone engagement is the right shape for your situation.
No pitch, no pressure
One programme, from architecture through year three.
A 30-minute call is enough to tell whether your integration scope is bundle-shaped — and whether build-plus-run continuity or a standalone engagement is the right fit.
Book a call →Or explore the other bundles or individual services.