two systems that never spoke to each other
nura built a bridge between two platforms a UK field-services business already relied on: Freshworks, where its sales and marketing lived, and BigChange, where every job, engineer and site visit was managed. The two had never exchanged a single record. This is how we made them talk, and what that let the business finally see.
The bridge in outline: a governed n8n workflow moving records both ways over HTTP APIs, owned outright by the business rather than rented as a black box.
a growing business running on two separate memories
The company sells and delivers field services across the UK: quotes and campaigns handled in Freshworks, jobs and engineers handled in BigChange. Both were working systems. The problem was that neither knew what the other knew. Marketing couldn't see who had actually become a paying, repeat customer, and operations couldn't see how a client had first arrived. Two halves of the same relationship, kept in two separate memories that never compared notes.
an audit of both systems before a single connection was made
Before promising any integration, the first project, CRM-BRG-P01, was an audit of what each platform actually exposed. Which records mattered, which fields were trustworthy, where the same customer appeared twice under two spellings, and exactly what each API would and wouldn't allow. The evidence came first; the build came after it, not in place of it.
one governed bridge, built in n8n, gated before it went live
The integration runs as a single governed project under our PLAN, DESIGN, BUILD, STATUS methodology, built on n8n so the business owns the workflow outright rather than renting a black-box connector. Each direction of sync — Freshworks to BigChange, and BigChange back to Freshworks — was designed, mapped field by field, and tested against real records before it was allowed to run unattended. HTTP API connections carry contacts, job history and account status between the two, with matching rules that decide when two records are the same person and when they are genuinely not.
a two-way link that gives every client one shared history
A contact created or updated in one system now surfaces in the other, tied to the work actually done. Sales can see whether a prospect became a delivered, invoiced job. Operations can see the campaign a client first responded to. Duplicate records are matched and merged rather than multiplied, so a customer is one customer, not three. For the first time the business could look at a client and see the whole relationship at once, not one edited half of it.
a marketing-consent gap, closed before the first campaign
An early version of the bridge copied contacts cleanly but left one thing behind: consent. A customer who had opted out of marketing in one system would have arrived in the other with that choice stripped away, and the next campaign would have reached someone who had explicitly asked not to be contacted. The gated review caught it before anything sent. Consent state is now carried across the bridge as a first-class field, so an opt-out in either system is an opt-out everywhere. Ethical by default, not by accident, and not something the business had to notice the hard way.
a live bridge, and a business that can see itself
The connection runs every day. With both systems finally sharing one memory, the company can tell which areas and which kinds of work are genuinely profitable, market more precisely to the clients it already has, and go after new clients in the places the data says are worth the effort. The bridge isn't a one-off migration that ran once and stopped; it's the standing link the business now runs on.
this is what a joined-up business looks like
If two systems in your business are keeping two separate halves of the same story, that's exactly the kind of gap we close.