Start with the question. Check the data behind it.
A useful HQ evaluation starts with source feasibility: what records exist, how access is authorized and which definitions need to align.
Assess the source, not just its category.
These are candidate data categories to discuss, not a list of native integrations. No named third-party connector or file format is confirmed by this matrix.
Scroll horizontally to compare all five columns. With a keyboard, focus the table and use the arrow keys.
| System / category | Candidate records | Connection method to assess | Availability | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| POS & transactions | Transactions, refunds, service or product mix, location IDs | Assess authorized API access or source exports | Confirm during discovery | Field coverage, historical access and refresh cadence depend on the source. |
| Inventory | Stock movements, counts, items and location references | Assess exports or a scoped source connection | Confirm during discovery | Reconcile item IDs, units and transfer definitions first. |
| Accounting | Revenue categories, costs and reporting periods | Assess permitted ledger or report access | Confirm during discovery | Agree reconciliation rules; operational records may differ from financial reports. |
| Workforce | Location assignments, shifts and attendance | Assess minimum necessary records and permissions | Confirm during discovery | Agree personal-data handling and access boundaries before sharing. |
| ERP | Orders, products, entities and operating events | Assess source interfaces and mapping scope | Confirm during discovery | Source versions, custom fields and ownership affect feasibility. |
| CRM & visits | Visit history, customer references and authorized feedback | Assess permitted exports or source interfaces | Confirm during discovery | Agree identity mapping, consent requirements and comparable visit definitions. |
Ri’SERVE Operations can be a starting source discussion. Its exact HQ data coverage and connection scope still require confirmation. API access, CSV or spreadsheet exports and scheduled synchronization are assessment options, not blanket import support.
Bring the shape of the data. Keep sensitive records out of the enquiry.
What helps us assess feasibility
- System name, version and source-system owner.
- Field names or a non-sensitive sample schema, plus location and record identifiers.
- Reporting periods, time zones, currencies and useful history.
- Definitions for visits, revenue, refunds and comparable locations.
What we agree before access
- Authorized access route and minimum necessary permissions.
- Read-only versus any separately approved write path.
- Mapping, data-quality gaps, refresh needs and reconciliation rules.
- Personal-data handling, operating owner and access boundaries.
Use the website enquiry to describe systems and questions. Do not paste customer records, credentials or confidential exports. We agree an appropriate exchange route during discovery.
From a source record to a reviewable question.
A scoping model: identify the source, align definitions, preserve evidence and review the interpretation. Each step depends on the agreed implementation.
Source
Authorized records and their owner.
Map
Identifiers, periods and business definitions.
Inspect
Evidence, coverage and unresolved gaps.
Review
A question and a named decision owner.
A feasibility review comes before a rollout.
Start with one question and the source constraints. The HQ Value Sprint can scope the evidence, agreed capabilities, evaluation findings and next-step recommendation.
Discuss an HQ Value SprintBring one question. Find a useful first scope.
Tell us what changed, which systems hold the records and who owns the next decision. Include your time zone and preferred times if you would like a walkthrough.
An enquiry starts a conversation. It does not reserve a meeting.