What does the integration claim cover?
Ask for the document that describes the proposed connection, with its link and checked date:
- The software maker documents a connector - compare its supported operations with the supplier's service scope.
- The supplier describes its own connection - ask which version and workflow are included in your purchase.
- Only an API is available - agree who will design, maintain and accept the connection.
- Only the product is named - ask how the proposed team actually works with it.
- The workflow is not described - request a written scope before granting access.
Documentation starts the comparison. Agree the expected results for your configuration before accepting the service.
The workflow-depth matrix
Document the RMM and PSA separately. Include your documentation and identity platforms when they are part of the external team's access.
| Field | Define the required behavior | Check the failure case |
|---|---|---|
| Direction | One-way or two-way updates; which system wins a conflict | One side changes while the other is unavailable |
| Trigger | Events that create, update, reopen or close a ticket | An alert clears, repeats or arrives out of order |
| Object mapping | Client, site, device, priority and ticket type | Two clients have similar device names |
| Tenant scope | Clients and assets included in the service | An unenrolled asset or another client is selected |
| Credential owner | Creation, rotation and emergency revocation | A provider technician leaves or a credential expires |
| Permission level | Actions allowed for the proposed support role | A restricted change requires approval |
| Audit trail | Person or service identity, action, timestamp and result | The buyer must reconstruct a failed change |
| Error handling | Detection, retry, duplicate handling and fallback owner | The ticket system or connection is unavailable |
| Offboarding | Accounts, tokens, delegated roles and retained access | Provider access is removed during a controlled test |
| Source and checked date | Applicable documentation and configuration version | The product or service changes after acceptance |
Two published integration cases
These historical, supplier-published MSP Assist cases describe software workflows at two named MSPs. Confirm your current product versions and assign the team responsible for acting on the resulting tickets, including nights and weekends.
Correct Solutions / Kaseya and ConnectWise
MSP Assist's case identifies Damien Gardner as the Kaseya Administrator at Correct Solutions. It describes repeated overnight and weekend tickets, de-duplication and two-way synchronization between monitoring, ticketing and billing.
Apply to your proposal: Which repeated alerts become one actionable ticket, how is the original event history retained, and which system owns a conflicting update?
Read the original Correct Solutions case (PDF, 2 pages) (external website) - checked
StoredTech / Kaseya and Autotask
The StoredTech case identifies Mark Shaw as CEO in that account. It describes connecting Kaseya RMM with Autotask PSA and sharing monitor sets with Techs+Together tenants. This gives a concrete workflow to examine before choosing an integration service.
Apply to your proposal: How are monitor sets assigned to each client, which PSA updates synchronize, and who handles the resulting ticket when an automated action cannot proceed?
Read the original StoredTech case (PDF, 2 pages) (external website) - checked
Credentials and access model
Name the MSP owner who can grant, review and revoke access. Agree the supported authentication method, the role the provider will use and the process for approving restricted actions. Retain an independent route to your own systems for an emergency handback.
Ask the candidate to demonstrate with the proposed role. Verify that its action history identifies the responsible person or controlled service identity and that the MSP can read the required history after the engagement ends.
For Microsoft 365 partner access through GDAP, map each proposed action and target account type against Microsoft's least-privileged role table (external website), checked 17 October 2026. A non-admin password reset, an authentication-method change and a privileged-admin password reset have separate role entries. Permission to perform a task is separate from checking the caller and obtaining the buyer's approval; include both decisions in the desk requirements.
Audit trail
During the pilot, export one complete test trail. Reconstruct the signal, client mapping, ticket creation, action, approval and final state from that export. Resolve any missing step before expanding the service. Agree the retention period and access to the required history in the proposal.
Automated and AI-assisted actions
Separate a tool that drafts a response from one that changes a client system. For every automated step, state the allowed action, required approval and person responsible for recovery. A confidence score alone does not establish permission to act.
| Workflow decision | Ask the provider to define | Demonstrate before expanding access |
|---|---|---|
| Suggestion or execution | Whether the tool drafts, classifies, assigns or performs a change | A proposed change waits for the required approval |
| Client boundary | Which clients, assets and information the action may use | A request cannot act on another test tenant |
| Human handoff | The queue, accepting owner and coverage when the automation cannot proceed | An uncertain or failed action reaches a staffed owner |
| Ticket and SLA events | How automated acknowledgement, qualified work and completed remediation appear in the history | The ticket history distinguishes those events |
| Recovery | Who can stop execution, reverse a supported change and resume service | The MSP can interrupt a permitted test action and inspect its result |
| Reporting and billing | How attempted, failed, repeated and reopened actions affect reports and fees | One attempted action can be reconciled to its ticket, log and invoice rule |
Use a disposable test account and an agreed safe action for demonstrations. Set the expected outcome before running the case; keep failed cases visible even when a later retry succeeds.
Recent supplier interviews provide useful questions, with their service scope still to agree. Uptime's published interview discusses changing triage roles; Infrassist's interview addresses documented processes and automation. Neither replaces acceptance of your proposed workflow.
The onboarding pilot test
- Create a test alert and confirm the expected ticket, client and owner.
- Check severity and routing using a second test tenant.
- Update notes, assignment and status in each promised direction.
- Repeat an alert and interrupt the connection to test duplicate handling, retry and fallback.
- Remove the test-provider access and confirm that actions stop while MSP access remains available.
- Export the test history and verify the identity, timestamps, action and result.
Set the expected outcomes before testing. Keep failed cases and the follow-up result together so the accepted configuration and any remaining limitations are clear.
Product guides
For a HaloPSA and NinjaOne connection, compare the Halo configuration guide (external website) with the NinjaOne integration instructions (external website). Ask the supplier which documented operations its service includes.
- HaloPSA help desk
- NinjaOne help desk
- Autotask help desk
- Datto RMM support
- Auvik NOC
- ConnectWise Automate NOC
- N-central and N-sight support
- Atera NOC
- NinjaOne NOC
ConnectWise PSA help desks
Provider details and workflow questions
For a ConnectWise PSA / Manage purchase, name the exact ticket system and working queue. Ask separately about Automate and ScreenConnect access. A supplier naming a product gives you a candidate to question; the proposal must still define the work and permissions.
4 suppliers below name ConnectWise PSA / Manage in a helpdesk service source. Each entry starts with one actual purchase; use its proposal questions to define the working queue and handback.
31West / MSP help desk
The MSP helpdesk page explicitly names ConnectWise Manage among its tools. Source / 2026-10-15 (external website)
Ask in the proposal: Will technicians work in your PSA or exchange tickets with another system? Name the enrolled clients, working board, allowed changes and accepting owner for a returned request.
Benchmark365 / White-label help desk
The FAQ names ConnectWise Manage integration and says staff work in Benchmark365 systems rather than inside the MSP ticketing system. Help desk FAQ / 2026-10-17 (external website)
Ask in the proposal: Which notes, attachments, owner changes and statuses return to your PSA? Name the supplier queue and the MSP owner who accepts a rejected, duplicated or unfinished update.
Read Benchmark365: White-label help desk / Build an RFP for this service
Flexis IT / Help desk - user/device model to clarify
The helpdesk page names ConnectWise Manage. This entry starts with the user/device purchase; the incident pool and AgilePod engineer are separate choices. Help desk models and FAQ / 2026-11-06 (external website)
Ask in the proposal: Which PSA actions and retained escalations belong to this purchase, what user/device quantity is billed, and which owner accepts work beyond the agreed scope?
Read Flexis IT: Help desk - user/device model to clarify / Build an RFP for this service
Inputiv / Base - 29 tickets and 1 project
The plan FAQ names ConnectWise Manage among familiar ticketing platforms. This service example uses Base; Plus and Premium are separate purchases. Current helpdesk/project plans and FAQ / 2026-11-06 (external website) Helpdesk scope and technology stack / 2026-11-06 (external website)
Ask in the proposal: How do ticket and project work in this plan reach the correct company and board? Agree permitted changes, note audiences and how excess work is approved before it is carried out.
Read Inputiv: Base - 29 tickets and 1 project / Build an RFP for this service
Agree the queue boundary
Choose whether the team works in your PSA or uses a supplier system that exchanges updates. For either route, agree these outcomes with the proposed team:
- Company and board: the request reaches the intended client and queue, while an unenrolled test client stays outside the service.
- Notes and recipients: customer-facing updates, private working notes, attachments and approval details reach only the agreed destinations. Check the actual portal, email template and supplier copy separately.
- Status and time: agree what acknowledgement, active work, waiting, handback and completion mean in each system. Document the effect on notifications, agreed SLA clocks and billable time.
- Replies and reopening: an authorized test reply attaches to the intended ticket and reaches the accepting owner. Agree what happens after completion or outside staffed hours.
- Failed exchange: a rejected or repeated update has a visible failure route, an owner and a recovery decision; it does not silently finish the buyer's request.
These are proposed acceptance outcomes. Put the agreed mapping into the workflow below and use the existing pilot cases to demonstrate it in an authorized test environment.
For N-central and N-sight outsourcing, separate the named RMM from the working queue, client/device visibility and permitted actions. Review the devices affected by a shared policy as well as the technician's visible client list.
Syncro help desk service choices
Provider details and workflow questions
Five help desk purchases from four suppliers name Syncro in service-specific material. Exchanging tickets with a supplier system and assigning an engineer inside your platform are different arrangements.
- Benchmark365 - White-label help desk. Its FAQ (external website) names Syncro integration while stating that staff work in Benchmark365 systems. Agree which notes, statuses and assignments cross back to your queue. Build a Syncro request for this service.
- Flexis IT - two help desk models. Its service page (external website) names Syncro, but the user/device definition and incident-pool counting need separate proposals. Build the request for the user/device model or the incident pool.
- LTVplus - dedicated Tier 1-2 engineer seat. Its managed helpdesk page (external website) names Syncro. Specify the assigned role, staffed schedule, supervision and permitted client access. Build this service's Syncro request.
- Sherweb - Helpdesk. Its service document (external website) lists Syncro MSP in the HDC API systems. Agree the field mapping and receiving owner instead of treating an API listing as a complete working-queue agreement. Build the Helpdesk Syncro request.
Separate the remote-support products
Syncro's Splashtop SOS guide (external website), checked 21 October 2026, distinguishes SOS enablement from the Assets - Allow Remote Access permission. An administrator selects technicians with SOS access; that asset permission does not control whether they can initiate SOS sessions. Attended support can work with or without the Syncro agent installed.
Ask which remote product the proposed team will use, who approves and can start a session, how session history is kept and who pays any add-on usage. Make each agreed ticket exchange and permitted remote action a separate case in the worksheet below.
Worksheet
Fill the on-page workflow, copy it as Markdown or download the blank worksheet. Keep credentials and confidential client details in the approved systems; use sanitized descriptions here.
Add the required workflow and pilot acceptance to section 6 of the RFP. Then compare the proposed help desk scope or NOC duties with the actions the integration permits.