Custom web platforms built around your workflow

Off-the-shelf software is the right answer whenever the process is standard - accounting, email, payroll - and we will say so rather than sell you a build. A custom platform earns its cost when the process is genuinely specific to how you compete, or when you are already paying several subscriptions plus manual labour to bridge the gaps between them. The clearest signal that the threshold has been crossed is somebody on the team retyping the same record into a second system, or nobody being able to state the status of anything without asking a particular person. Custom means the data model, screens, permissions and automations follow how you work, rather than your process being reshaped to fit a product roadmap you do not control.

We integrate with CRM systems including Fireberry and Powerlink, ERP and accounting platforms such as Priority, Hashavshevet, Morning (Green Invoice), Greeninvoice, iCount and Rivhit, Israeli payment providers, shipping and logistics services, email and the WhatsApp Business API, and internal databases. Where a vendor exposes an API we can generally connect to it; where one does not, we work with scheduled file import and export, and we say so during discovery rather than after contracting. What we settle in the specification is which fields move, in which direction, how often and what happens on error - because the question that matters in an integration is not what happens when everything works, but what happens when a provider is unavailable or returns something unexpected.

A focused internal tool built around a single business process can ship in weeks. A portal or dashboard suite with multiple roles, permissions and integrations typically runs a few months. Three things set the range: the number of screens and states, the number of external systems to connect - each integration is a small project of its own, with error handling and edge cases - and how quickly decisions, data and approvals come back from your side. We deliver in working increments rather than one large handover, so you steer real software early instead of approving documents. The stage least worth compressing is the specification: changing the data model after a system is in production is the most expensive change there is.

Yes. The repository, the infrastructure accounts and every credential are yours, and the deployment pipeline is handed over with them. We also document the architecture, the data model and the deployment process, so another team could pick the system up without reverse-engineering it first - which is what makes the ownership meaningful rather than nominal. Nothing stops working if you stop working with us, and no licence key sits in our name. This matters more with an internal platform than with a website, because a system your operations depend on daily is the worst possible thing to be locked out of, and undocumented custom software is a well-known way for businesses to end up dependent on a single supplier.

Migration is planned as part of the project rather than treated as an afterthought, because it is where these projects most often go wrong. We map the existing data wherever it lives - a legacy system, a set of spreadsheets, or both - then clean and transform it, resolve duplicates and decide what is worth carrying across at all. Trial migrations run against a staging environment so the count and the content can be verified before anything is committed, and the old system stays available in parallel until the new one has been checked against it. Data that has accumulated for years in spreadsheets is rarely as consistent as anyone expects, and finding that out during a trial run is considerably cheaper than finding it out afterwards.

We do, under an ongoing support arrangement covering monitoring, security and dependency updates, backups, integration upkeep and fixes, plus new features as the process changes. The first weeks after launch almost always surface refinements that only real use exposes - a missing field, an extra status, a permission that needs splitting, an alert that needs tuning - and those are handled within the arrangement rather than reopened as a new project. A whole new module goes through a short specification and is priced before development, so the boundary between support and new work is explicit in the agreement rather than argued about later. If you would rather run it with an internal team, we hand over documentation and support the transition.