Improving Integration Efficiency Through Intapp
Architecture Assessment and Best Practices
Client Overview
Our client is a UK-based law firm established in the 20th century. Today, they have a strong presence both nationally and internationally. The firm is known for its legal expertise and people-focused approach. With over 600 professionals and 70 partners, they offer a comprehensive range of legal services to clients across various sectors.
Business Objective
We partnered with a leading UK law firm to assess and optimize their Intapp integration architecture, with the clear objective of improving efficiency, scalability, and long-term system resilience. Leveraging our expertise as certified Boomi and Intapp Integration Services Partners, we delivered a future-ready integration framework.
The Power of Integration Architecture
Integration ensures connected systems, automated processes, and data flow across the law firm, but it can become inconsistent and challenging to manage when integration needs to be scaled. What worked earlier might not align with the growing needs and demands. This can create operational roadblocks and require architecture assessment to optimise further.
Architecture assessment is about optimising the existing one, instead of building something new every time. This analysis identifies inefficiencies and some solutions that can fix the integration system.
Businesses require this integration architecture assessment to:
- Identify and eliminate the operational bottlenecks
- Enhance visibility, maintenance and process standardisation
- Reduce technical debt and integration redundancies
- Prepare an integrated ecosystem that is scalable with growing business needs
Industry
Professional Services
Platform
Intapp
Service
Architecture Assessment
Challenges
Inconsistent Naming
Unnamed or poorly named components made execution summaries hard to read.
Redundant Processes
Tightly coupled processes across environments led to error-prone updates.
Error Handling
Subprocesses lacked robust error handling, limiting failure visibility.
Inefficient Scripting
Inline scripts without comments complicated maintenance and debugging.
Inconsistent Extensions
Inconsistent extension use required separate environment management.
HTTP Operations
Multiple HTTP operations increased maintenance burdens.
Explore how our certified Intapp expertise can drive efficiency, scalability, and excellence in your operations.
Connect with Our Intapp ExpertsSolutions
Naming Conventions
In the Sitecore to D365, PMS to Peppermint, and PMS to Time integrations, many components lacked proper names, making execution summaries difficult to follow and process steps unclear. To address this, we recommend adopting a self-explanatory and consistent naming convention standard across all Boomi components, ensuring greater clarity, easier tracking, and improved management of integration flows.
Process Development
We identified redundant, tightly coupled processes across testing and production environments that were hard to manage and error-prone during updates. Our recommendations included leveraging connection extensions for unified deployment, consolidating Set Property and Data Process shapes, merging similar subprocesses, using Process Route for dynamic routing, and eliminating dangling shapes—simplified the design, reducing redundancy and boosting maintainability.
Scripting
Inline scripts were frequently used within mappings, often without comments, which made them hard to read, debug, and maintain. To solve this, we advised against inline scripting in Data Process shapes and Map components, recommending the use of component-level Process or Map Scripts instead. Including clear documentation and comments within scripts ensures readability, improves maintainability, and accelerates debugging efforts.
Extensions Usage
Extensions were not used consistently across connectors, Cross References and Process Properties. This demanded separate management of test and production environments. Our Boomi expert recommended extensively leveraging the potential of Boomi extensions to manage configuration values in different environments. This approach allows you to deploy the same integration process in various environments without creating separate versions.
Error Handling
Many subprocesses lacked proper error handling, with some using only a Return Document shape or missing catch blocks around critical areas like map shapes, which limited visibility and left errors uncaught. To mitigate this, we recommended implementing comprehensive error handling at both process and document levels. Rather than using “Stop” in catch paths, we suggested returning meaningful error responses, configuring try-catch shapes to capture all error types, and ensuring connector-related failures are surfaced effectively.
Reusability
We discovered multiple HTTP operations created for identical functionality, which introduced unnecessary redundancy and maintenance challenges. To address this, we proposed replacing all duplicate HTTP operations with a single operation and introducing dynamic value setting to identify various data types from the PMS database. This approach minimizes duplication, improves reusability, and simplifies process management.
Results
Enhanced Process Visibility
Standardized naming conventions improved readability and tracking of process execution summaries.
Reduced Redundancy
Consolidated processes and HTTP operations decreased maintenance efforts and technical debt.
Improved Error Handling
Comprehensive try-catch mechanisms increased failure visibility and system reliability.
Streamlined Deployment
Leveraged Boomi extensions for consistent process deployment across test and production environments.
Technology Stack
Related Case Studies
Get in touch
Tell us what you're looking for and we'll get you connected to the right people.