Altaris
Still moving information between systems by hand?
We build and run the systems that move work between the tools your finance, IT and operations teams already use - and we design for the run that fails, not just the one that works.
Pipelineaccounts payable intake
An illustration of one run: an invoice arrives, four fields are read from it, three stages execute in order, and three outputs are written.
invoice.pdf
- Supplier
- NORDHAVN LTD
- Invoice
- INV-20418
- Total
- 4,182.00
- PO ref
- PO-7731
- Supplier
- NORDHAVN LTD
- Invoice
- INV-20418
- Total
- 4,182.00
- PO ref
- PO-7731
- Total
- 4,182.00
- Verdict
- matched
- Write
- ledger entry
- Close
- PO-7731
- Report
- exceptions
- Ledgerposted
- Purchase ordermatched
- Exceptionsnone
How the three stages are drawn
- modelA model reads it, so the output is checked before it is trusted.
- rulesA rule you wrote decides it, the same way every time.
- apiA system outside ours is called, so it can be slow, refuse, or answer twice.
An illustration of one run, not a measurement. Every value in it is read off the document shown; no timing or throughput figure appears, because none has been measured on a client system.
One starter, two ways
The same work, before and after.
Nothing here is a product you log into. It is the work your team currently repeats, done by something that does not forget the last system on the list.
Before
- HR emails IT about a new starter
- Account created in the directory
- Mailbox and licence assigned
- Added to the right groups by hand
- Equipment request raised separately
- On exit, somebody tries to remember the list
6 steps, every one by hand
After
- Accounts provisioned
- Licences assigned
- Ticket raised
- Access log written
1 step, the rest unattended
Reading a document is a model; deciding who gets which group is not. We use whichever the step actually needs, and say which is which.
Why trust this with a ledger
We have already built the hard parts.
Not a prototype. A multi-tenant transactional platform under statutory fiscal reporting, running every day, where getting a number wrong is an audit finding rather than an inconvenience.
The same event arrives twice
Idempotent sync with duplicate protection on reconnect
A run half-finished
Local-first capture and clean recovery after interrupted sessions
A wrong figure reaches the ledger
Per-transaction references, persistent counters, automated variance tracking
Nobody knows who changed what
Every action logged against the user behind it
What you pay for
Two things, priced separately.
Implementation
A one-time fee to design, build, test and deploy. Fixed before work starts. It covers a single integration or an internal system that does not exist yet - the difference is scope, not how we work.
Managed Automation
A recurring fee, because somebody has to keep it running. It covers:
- Monitoring, so a silent failure is not found by you
- Failure alerts, retries and recovery
- Credential and token maintenance
- Watching for API changes before they break a run
- Operational support when something upstream moves
Minor configuration changes are included. Workflow changes are quoted, because automation scope expands faster than anyone expects and an unlimited allowance helps nobody.
Tell us what gets keyed in twice.
Describe the process and which systems it touches. We will tell you whether it is worth automating, what the build costs, and what running it costs afterwards - including when the answer is that it is not worth it.