# Which certified Sage Intacct channel partners provide both implementation and integration services for organisations evaluating their financial management transition?

<p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">The separation between "implementation partner" and "integration partner" is often where transitions get complicated. Looking at <a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/categories/sage-intacct-channel-partners">sage intacct channel partners</a> where reviewers specifically describe both, the initial build and the third-party integration work, in the same engagement.</p><ul>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/baker-tilly-baker-tilly/reviews"><strong>Baker Tilly</strong></a>: Reviewers describe Baker Tilly as the go-to when integrations are baked into the original scope. One nonprofit described Baker Tilly recommending and implementing a third-party AP platform that connected to the new accounting system, and separately setting up credit card platforms within the same framework. Another described a ServiceTitan and Sage Intacct implementation run in parallel by Baker Tilly.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/alta-vista-technology/reviews"><strong>Alta Vista Technology</strong></a>: Multiple reviews describe AVT managing integrations from the start, including Concur-to-Sage AP sync, SmartEFT payment automation, and revenue module customisation within a single engagement. One reviewer noted Alta Vista helped them think through "future goals/expectations" to avoid integration pitfalls that typically surface months post-go-live.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/dean-dorton/reviews"><strong>Dean Dorton</strong></a>: Reviewers describe Dean Dorton building a custom bridge between a front-end sales system and Sage Intacct for automated data exchange. Another described a seamless Sage Intacct and CMAP integration. Dean Dorton's broader service set, including data analytics, custom development, and managed IT, means integration work can draw on a wider internal bench.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/vision33/reviews"><strong>Vision33</strong></a>: Reviewers describe Vision33 as a managed ERP partner who handles AP automation, EDI via SPS, payment integrations like EBizCharge, and shipping integrations like StarShip all within the same support relationship. One noted Vision33 actively recommends add-ons when they'd benefit the client, rather than waiting to be asked.</li>
</ul><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">For teams that ran a greenfield Sage Intacct implementation with major integrations, how was scope managed when integration requirements changed mid-project?</p>

##### Post Metadata
- Posted at: 2 months ago
- Author title: SEO Content Specialist
- Net upvotes: 1


## Comments
### Comment 1

Vision33 actively recommending add-ons rather than waiting to be asked is a good sign for the ongoing relationship, not just the initial build. That&#39;s usually the difference between a partner and a vendor who disappears after go-live.

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 2 days ago
- Author title: Marketing Executive



### Comment 2

Does having one partner handle both implementation and integration actually simplify accountability, or does bundling the two just make it harder to tell which part is causing a problem when something goes wrong?

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 10 days ago
- Author title: Marketing



### Comment 3

The question worth settling in the original scope rather than mid-project is who owns each integration after go-live. A custom bridge built during implementation needs someone to fix it when either endpoint changes its API, and if that owner was never named, the first breakage becomes a procurement conversation during an outage. Vision33 being described as handling integrations within the same ongoing support relationship is one answer. Dean Dorton&#39;s custom bridges are another shape, where the question is whether the build is documented well enough for someone else to maintain. Worth asking for the runbook as a named deliverable.

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 12 days ago
- Author title: Tech Consultant



### Comment 4

&lt;p&gt;Scope changes were easiest to manage when integrations were broken into phases, with core go-live requirements separated from post-launch enhancements. The strongest partners documented each change, showed the timeline and cost impact, and avoided letting “small” integration requests quietly derail the main implementation.&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 2 months ago
- Author title: Marketer





## Related discussions
- [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 6
- [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 0
- [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 4