A stack chosen on evidence, then wired to work as one system.
Platform agnostic. We pick what fits, then make it talk.
The winner is rarely the one with the most checkmarks.
It is the one the people at the front desk can actually run. Scoring on native fit, integration depth, learning curve and true annual cost turns a preference into a decision you can defend — and defend again in two years when someone asks why.
- Audit what exists, including the systems nobody listed.
- Score the candidates on one grid, with the total cost nobody quotes you.
- Integrate the chosen tools so they behave like one system rather than several.
- Tech stack audit across every system holding part of the truth
- Platform scoring grid with weighted criteria
- True annual cost roll-up, processing fees included
- Plain-English verdict per platform
- Integration and automation build
- Data mapping between systems
- Server-side conversion tracking
- Catalogue and taxonomy structure
- Migration sequencing and reconciliation
Are you tied to particular platforms?
No. The scoring grid exists so the decision comes from the criteria rather than from what we already know. Some engagements end with the client keeping what they had.
What does the audit actually produce?
A scored grid, a total-cost roll-up, and a plain-English verdict per platform — a document you can hand to someone who was not in the room.
How many platforms do you usually score?
Six to twelve, depending on the category. Dogwood & Co. ran to twelve across e-commerce, POS and email on a single grid.
Do you do the integration work too, or just the recommendation?
Both. The recommendation is worth little if the wiring afterwards is left to someone else.