Tech Stack Consolidation: Fewer Tools, Better Automation

The average small business uses 40 to 60 SaaS applications. A mid-market company uses over 100. Every one of those tools was adopted for a reason: someone needed to solve a specific problem at a specific moment. But over time, the cumulative effect is a fractured operations infrastructure where data lives in dozens of disconnected systems, integrations multiply like vines, and the automation that connects everything becomes fragile, expensive, and difficult to maintain.

Tech stack consolidation is not about using fewer tools for the sake of simplicity. It is about building an operations infrastructure where automation can thrive, where data flows cleanly, and where every new capability builds on a stable foundation rather than adding another layer of integration complexity.

The True Cost of Tool Sprawl

The subscription costs of redundant tools are obvious and often drive the initial consolidation conversation. But subscription fees are typically the smallest component of tool sprawl costs. The real costs are hidden in three places.

Integration maintenance. Every connection between two systems must be built, monitored, and maintained. When System A updates its API, the integration with System B breaks. When System C changes its data format, the workflow that feeds System D produces errors. A company with 15 tools and 20 integrations between them has 20 potential failure points. A company that consolidates to 8 tools with 10 integrations has halved its maintenance burden and its failure surface.

Data inconsistency. When customer data lives in four different systems, which one is the source of truth? When inventory counts are tracked in three places, which number do you trust? Data inconsistency creates manual reconciliation work, decision uncertainty, and customer-facing errors. Every additional tool that holds a copy of important data is another source of potential inconsistency.

Cognitive overhead. Every tool requires training, context-switching, and mental model maintenance. Your team must remember which system to check for which information, which system to update when something changes, and how data maps between systems. This cognitive overhead slows everything down and increases error rates.

A sprawling tool landscape with point-to-point integrations versus a consolidated hub-and-spoke architecture.

The Consolidation Decision Framework

Not every tool should be consolidated. The decision depends on three factors: functional overlap, integration capability, and switching cost.

Functional overlap is the starting point. Audit every tool in your stack and map its primary functions. You will almost certainly find multiple tools performing the same function. Two project management tools. Three email marketing platforms (because different teams adopted different ones). Two invoice generation systems. These are straightforward consolidation opportunities.

Integration capability determines which tool survives the consolidation. Between two tools that perform the same function, keep the one that integrates better with the rest of your stack. A tool with a robust API and native connections to your core systems is more valuable than a tool with marginally better features but poor integration support. When building automation through platforms like Make.com, the availability of pre-built connectors can save weeks of development time.

Switching cost includes data migration, team retraining, and workflow rebuilding. Sometimes a redundant tool is deeply embedded in critical processes, and the switching cost outweighs the consolidation benefit. Be honest about switching costs. A tool that "should take a week to replace" almost never does.

The Hub-and-Spoke Architecture

The ideal consolidated tech stack follows a hub-and-spoke pattern. Your automation platform sits at the center as the integration hub. Each business application connects to the hub, not directly to every other application. This architecture dramatically reduces integration complexity. Instead of n-squared potential connections, you have n connections, each managed through the central hub.

The hub-and-spoke model also simplifies monitoring, error handling, and disaster recovery. When something fails, there is one place to check the logs, one place to replay failed transactions, and one set of error handling rules to maintain.

For most small and mid-market businesses, the practical consolidated stack looks like this: one accounting system (QuickBooks or Xero), one e-commerce or order management platform, one shipping and fulfillment system, one CRM, one communication platform, and one automation hub connecting them all. That is five to six tools handling what previously required twelve to fifteen.

The Consolidation Roadmap

Do not consolidate everything at once. A phased approach reduces risk and allows your team to adapt.

Phase 1: Audit and map. Document every tool, its function, its cost, who uses it, and what it connects to. Identify overlaps and dependencies. This typically takes one to two weeks.

Phase 2: Eliminate the obvious. Cancel tools that are unused, underused, or clearly redundant. These quick wins reduce costs and simplify the landscape with minimal disruption. Common finds include analytics tools nobody checks, project management tools only one person uses, and backup tools that were adopted temporarily and never removed.

Phase 3: Consolidate by function. For each function served by multiple tools, select the winner and plan the migration. Migrate data first, then rebuild workflows, then retrain teams. Do not cut over until the new configuration is tested.

Phase 4: Rebuild automation. With a cleaner stack, rebuild your automated workflows using the hub-and-spoke pattern. The automations you build on a consolidated stack will be simpler, more reliable, and easier to maintain than the ones they replace.

Every tool you add to your stack is a commitment to maintain an integration, monitor a data flow, and train your team on another interface. Consolidation is not about having fewer capabilities. It is about having the same capabilities with less friction.

When Not to Consolidate

Consolidation has limits. A specialized tool that does one thing exceptionally well should not be replaced by a generalist tool that does it adequately. Your accounting system should be an accounting system, not a project management tool with an invoicing module. The goal is to eliminate redundancy, not to force every function into the smallest possible number of tools.

Similarly, do not consolidate tools that serve different audiences with legitimately different needs. If your sales team needs a CRM with specific pipeline management features and your support team needs a ticketing system with specific SLA tracking, combining them into one tool that does neither well serves nobody.

The test is whether consolidation improves your team's ability to work effectively and your automation's ability to move data reliably. If a consolidation passes both tests, proceed. If it fails either, the current setup may be justified despite the overlap. Use your automation readiness assessment to evaluate whether your current stack is ready for consolidation or needs other improvements first.