Nintex is easy to start with and unforgiving at scale. Teams build a hundred workflows, then discover that nobody owns them, none of them share a data contract, and the ones that matter most are the ones nobody can safely change. Twopir Consulting plans, designs, configures and supports Nintex the way a solution architect would — process first, data model second, canvas last. Process discovery, workflow architecture, documents, integrations and governance as one system.
A consulting team that has delivered CRM, automation and integration systems for 500+ organizations — now applying the same architectural discipline to Nintex estates across Salesforce and Microsoft 365.
Practice Coverage
Nintex consulting services are the advisory, design and delivery work that turns the Nintex platform into automation a business can run and change safely. The platform supplies the capability; the consulting work supplies the process model, the data contracts, the ownership structure and the build standards that decide whether that capability survives its second year.
| Layer | What Nintex provides natively | What our consulting engagement adds |
|---|---|---|
| Process | Nintex Process Manager for mapping, publishing and owning documented processes, with variations, feedback and process-governance reporting. | The discovery that decides which processes are worth automating at all, in what order, and where the measurable friction actually sits. |
| Workflow | A drag-and-drop designer, start events, conditional branching, loops, parallel paths, task assignment and configurable error handling. | The design standards underneath: naming, action sets, variable typing, retry and escalation patterns, and a change process that keeps them. |
| Forms & apps | Form designers, rules and repeating sections; Nintex Apps for building richer interfaces over the same data. | Interface design that matches how the role actually works, plus the validation and routing logic that keeps bad data out at the point of entry. |
| Documents | Nintex DocGen generating Word, Excel, PowerPoint and PDF output from record data, with delivery and eSignature routing. | Template architecture, field-tag governance, conditional content and the version control that keeps legal and sales working from one master. |
| Integration | A large connector library plus the Nintex Xtensions framework for building custom connectors from an OpenAPI definition. | The data contract: which system owns which field, which direction it moves, what happens on failure, and who is paged when it does. |
| Operation | Instance and workflow-level reporting, execution history and administrative controls. | The operating model — process owners, release routine, environment strategy, and a measurement layer leadership will actually read. |
Nintex consolidated its cloud line during 2026 under Nintex Automation CE, with Nintex Automation K2 as the on-premises line. Capability names above follow that structure. Where a specific edition matters to a decision, we confirm it against your tenant rather than against a datasheet.
Almost nobody calls because Nintex does not work. They call because the estate grew faster than the discipline around it. These six patterns account for most of the conversations we have.
The canvas was opened on day one. Nobody mapped the current state, agreed the exception paths, or asked which steps existed only because a previous system required them — so the automation faithfully reproduces the old mess, faster.
Workflows carry no naming standard, no descriptions, no action sets and no documentation. The person who built the approval chain has left. Every change request turns into an archaeology project, so changes stop being made.
Error handling was never configured, so a failed instance simply stops. The first signal is a customer asking where their contract is — days after the workflow died on a transient API timeout that a retry would have absorbed.
Loops that iterated over five records now iterate over five thousand. Logging inside those loops floods history. Parallel branches multiply calls into a throttled API. The design was never sized for the volume it now carries.
Nintex runs the approval, but the outcome is re-keyed into Salesforce or the ERP by hand. The automation removed a step and added a reconciliation task, which is why the promised saving never showed up in anyone's numbers.
Leadership approved the investment on a business case and has been given execution logs instead of a measurement. Nobody can answer how long the process now takes, where it stops, or which automations are worth keeping.
A workflow is an opinion about how work should happen, written in a form a machine will enforce without arguing. That is exactly why the opinion has to be examined first. We start every Nintex engagement by documenting the current process, naming its owner, and separating the steps that create value from the steps that exist because a retired system once demanded them.
We are architecture-first in execution and pragmatic about tooling. Nintex is strong where a business process crosses systems, needs human judgement in the middle, and has to produce a document or a record at the end. It is not the right answer to every automation question, and we will say so. Where Salesforce-native automation, an integration platform or a simple report is the better answer, that is what we recommend.
Our standard is not a successful go-live. Our standard is an estate your team can still change confidently eighteen months later — because it is documented, owned, instrumented and built to a convention that survives the people who wrote it.
Most engagements start with one of these and grow into two or three. Each links to a page that covers the work in full — scope, method, technical considerations and what you get at the end.
A first Nintex deployment, or a move off Nintex for SharePoint onto a current platform. Environment strategy, data model, build, migration, cutover and hypercare, run as a defined project rather than a series of requests.
The build craft itself: start events, branching, loops, task assignment, forms and error handling, designed to a standard. This is where an estate is either made maintainable or made fragile.
The programme level above individual workflows: discovery, process mapping and ownership in Nintex Process Manager, then orchestration across workflow, RPA and documents for a genuinely end-to-end process.
Connecting Nintex to the systems that own the data — Salesforce, Microsoft 365, ERP, finance and service platforms. Field ownership, sync direction, failure behaviour and reconciliation, decided before anything is built.
Quotes, contracts, statements of work, invoices and packs generated from record data instead of assembled by hand — with template governance, conditional content and eSignature routing built in.
What to do when the out-of-the-box component nearly fits. Custom forms and interfaces, branded experiences, custom actions and connectors — built so an upgrade does not undo them.
For estates that already exist and are getting slower, more expensive or more fragile. We audit what is running, retire what is not earning its place, and re-engineer what is.
The engineering layer beneath an integration: custom connectors built with the Nintex Xtensions framework from an OpenAPI definition, authentication, pagination, throttling and retry design.
Turning execution history into a measurement leadership will read: cycle time, where instances stop, exception volume and the cost of the steps that are still manual.
The failure patterns we find most often in inherited estates, each with the design that avoids it. Useful as a self-assessment before you commission any work — including ours.
Five stages, one continuous engagement. The first stage produces a decision, not a proposal — including the decision not to automate something. We stay accountable through the quarters after go-live, when the design has to hold under real volume.
We document the current process end to end, name its owner, and measure where the time and the rework actually go. Output is a prioritised shortlist with the friction quantified — and the candidates we recommend leaving alone.
We design the data contract, the workflow and form structure, the integration boundaries, the exception paths and the environment and release model — then agree the build conventions the whole estate will follow.
We build to those conventions in a non-production environment, wire the connectors, implement retry and escalation, and test the failure paths as deliberately as the happy path — because production only ever exercises both.
Structured UAT with the people who will live in it, a staged cutover, migration of in-flight work where needed, role-based enablement, and hypercare while the first real volume goes through.
We instrument the process, review exception and cycle-time data on a cadence, retire what is not earning its place, and extend the estate as the business changes — against the same conventions, not around them.
Nintex is rarely the system of record. It is the layer that moves work between the systems that are. Every connection below is designed with a direction, an owner and a defined failure behaviour before a single action is dragged onto a canvas.
Opportunity, quote and contract data drives document generation and approval inside Salesforce. The executed document, its status and its audit trail write back to the record, so the rep sees the signed contract on the opportunity rather than in an inbox.
Documents and list data in SharePoint start workflows; approvals surface as tasks in Outlook and Teams. Completed output lands back in a governed library with metadata set by the workflow, not typed by the person who filed it.
Purchase requests, vendor onboarding and invoice approvals run in Nintex where the human judgement sits, then post to the ERP as the approved transaction. Finance reconciles against one authoritative record instead of an approval email thread.
Service requests raised in the ITSM tool trigger the fulfilment process in Nintex — access provisioning, asset assignment, approvals — and the ticket is updated with real status as each step completes, so the requester is not chasing two systems.
Generated documents route for signature through the eSignature provider already in place, and the signature event — not a person noticing an email — advances the workflow and updates the source record.
Anything with a REST API can become a first-class connector through the Nintex Xtensions framework, defined in OpenAPI. That is how in-house and industry systems join the estate without a middleware tier nobody wanted to buy.
Where a system genuinely has no API, a bot handles the screen-level step and the workflow orchestrates around it — with the bot treated as one fallible participant in the process, not as the automation strategy.
Execution and process data is exported into the reporting platform leadership already uses, so automation performance appears next to the operational numbers it is supposed to be moving.
Plenty of Nintex estates should be run in-house, and some should not be extended at all. The question is not who is more capable — it is whether the work is a one-time architectural decision or a permanent operational responsibility.
| Consideration | Build and run in-house | Engage a consulting partner | Leave the estate as it is |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best when | You have a named automation owner with capacity, and the process landscape is stable and well understood. | The architecture decisions are new, one-time and expensive to get wrong — or the estate is already fragile. | The estate is small, documented, and nobody is being slowed down by it. |
| Main risk | Design conventions get set by whoever builds first, and the estate inherits them permanently. | Knowledge leaves with the partner if handover and documentation are not contracted explicitly. | Technical debt compounds quietly until a platform change or a departure forces the issue. |
| Speed to first value | Slower initially — the team is learning the platform and the patterns at the same time. | Faster, because the patterns are already known and the discovery is structured. | Immediate, and unchanged. |
| Cost shape | Lower cash cost, higher opportunity cost; the capacity comes out of another roadmap. | Defined project cost, with the ongoing cost a deliberate decision rather than a default. | No new cost, but the carrying cost of manual steps stays on the operating line. |
| What we would say | Right answer more often than partners admit. We will help you set the standards and then get out of the way. | Right when the decisions are architectural, cross-system, or have to survive an audit. | Sometimes genuinely correct. If the discovery says so, that is what our report will say. |
A discovery engagement is deliberately scoped so that its output is useful whichever of these three you choose. If the recommendation is to build it yourself, you keep the process maps, the data contract and the build standards.
Automation projects rarely fail on the canvas. They fail on the decisions made before anyone opened it — and on the absence of anyone owning them afterwards.
Every engagement starts with the current state, its owner and its measured friction. Automating an unexamined process is the most reliable way to make a bad process permanent.
Nintex usually sits next to a CRM that owns the data. As a Salesforce Gold Partner with 250+ platform deployments behind us, we design the two together instead of bolting one onto the other.
Naming conventions, action sets, described actions, documented exception paths and a release routine. The test is whether a new analyst can safely change a workflow they did not write.
Transient API errors, throttling, records that do not match, approvers who have left. These are not edge cases at production volume — they are Tuesday. They get designed, not discovered.
Some processes should be simplified, reassigned or retired rather than automated. A partner who never recommends that is selling build hours, not architecture.
The gains compound, and they are mostly gains in certainty rather than raw speed. These are the changes leadership tends to notice first.
Approvals have owners, deadlines and escalation paths, so the question changes from "where is it?" to "it is with finance until Thursday".
Quotes, contracts and packs are generated from the record in seconds, in the approved template, with the right clauses for that deal — and without a manual review for typos.
The same value stops being typed into three systems, which removes both the effort and the class of error that used to be found weeks later in reconciliation.
Approval sequence, thresholds and record retention are enforced by the workflow and evidenced in its history, which is a materially easier conversation in an audit.
Volume, cycle time, exception rate and stall points by stage — reported on the same cadence as the operational numbers they are supposed to be moving.
A documented estate with conventions and a release routine can absorb a pricing change or a new approval threshold in days, rather than triggering a rebuild discussion.
Consulting decides what should be built and how it should be structured; implementation builds and deploys it. In practice they run together, but they answer different questions. Consulting covers process discovery, the data contract, the integration boundaries, the governance model and the build standards. Implementation covers environments, configuration, migration, testing, cutover and hypercare. If you already know exactly what you want built, you may only need the second. Our implementation services page covers that scope in full.
Broadly three: move to the current Nintex cloud platform, move to the on-premises Nintex line if data residency or hosting requires it, or rebuild the process somewhere else entirely. Which is right depends on how many workflows you genuinely still use, how much of the logic is SharePoint-specific, and what your hosting constraints are. We start by inventorying what is actually running — in most estates a significant share of workflows are dormant and should be retired rather than migrated. A migration is also the one realistic opportunity to fix the design, so we treat it as a redesign with a deadline, not a lift and shift.
Both, and the Salesforce side is where much of our work sits. Nintex DocGen for Salesforce generates documents directly from Salesforce records, and Nintex Apps builds interfaces over Salesforce data. Because we are a Salesforce Gold Partner, we can design the Salesforce data model and the Nintex layer as one architecture rather than negotiating between two vendors. Our existing Nintex for Salesforce document generation work covers that in more detail.
Discovery is usually measured in weeks and a first production process in a small number of months, but the honest answer is that the range is wide and driven by three things: how many systems the process crosses, how clean the data in those systems is, and how quickly your side can make decisions and run UAT. Integration complexity and data quality move the timeline far more than the number of workflow steps does. We scope the first phase tightly enough to give you a real date rather than a range.
With an inventory, not a rebuild. We catalogue every workflow, form and document template, then classify each one by whether it is actively used, who owns it, what it touches and how it fails. That almost always produces three piles: retire, repair and re-architect — and the retire pile is usually the largest. Fixing the estate is generally cheaper and less disruptive than starting over, and it preserves the institutional logic buried in the workflows that do still matter. Workflow optimization covers that engagement in detail.
Not by design. Handover is part of the engagement, not an upsell: documented architecture, build conventions, the process maps, runbooks for the failure paths, and enablement for the people who will own it. Some clients keep us on a support retainer because they would rather buy the capacity than hire it — that should be a commercial decision, not the consequence of an estate nobody else can read.
A first conversation is a working session, not a pitch. Come with the process that frustrates you most and we will map where it actually breaks — including the cases where the answer is not Nintex.
Speak with architects who have built automation estates that outlived their builders
