LLM integration into existing business software | Anexia

For the LLM connection, we first define what the existing application may expect from the new function. This includes permitted inputs, response schema, maximum waiting time and the behaviour in the case of functionally unusable results. A technically successful HTTP call is not yet a usable business result. Mandatory fields, value ranges and permitted references are checked after the model output. Downstream systems must be able to rely on this application contract.

In model integration, we also consider the lifetime of a transaction. If a user cancels the request, the application should know whether processing continues in the background and whether a later result may still be accepted. Retries require a clear assignment to the original request. For LLM integration, error classes are described in such a way that support and development can distinguish between a provider outage, an input problem and a quality defect. Telemetry logs the metadata needed for this without storing confidential content in full by default. A limited reference call and negative contract tests form the basis of acceptance. This turns language model integration into a defined application component with manageable interfaces.

Scope of services for LLM integration

The agreed scope for the LLM connection can include the following results: API contract, authentication, rate limits, model adapter, structured output validation and technical telemetry. For each key result, we define its purpose, who reviews it and in what form it is handed over. This allows development, operations and procurement to assess the same service. Vague umbrella terms in the proposal are replaced by concrete work packages.

Model integration also includes coordinating the necessary interfaces with your team. We clarify access, contact persons and available testing options before the relevant implementation steps. Changes to the scope are described together with their effect on effort and sequence. This gives you a clear overview of delivered results, outstanding prerequisites and additional requests.

The key technical decision in LLM integration

A shared adapter can make switching providers easier, but must not hide different model capabilities behind a seemingly identical interface. For language model integration, we document the relevant assumptions and justify the chosen option. Key alternatives are considered against the same functional requirements. This makes later adjustments easier when load, data volume or organisational responsibility change.

A sound decision also takes maintainability and handover into account. For the LLM connection, we check which skills are available in-house and what additional support is needed. Technical possibilities are thereby linked to a realistic operating model. The client can see which tasks will arise regularly after the project and which decisions remain with them.

Invalid structured outputs, longer response times and uncontrolled retry attempts can block existing business processes. In model integration, we treat this point as a concrete review question. A risk is linked to the affected process, its potential impact and a suitable measure. Where prerequisites are still missing, the statement is explicitly left open until the necessary investigation has taken place.

We test schema errors, rate limits, cancellations by users, incomplete streams and the processing of responses after a timeout. For LLM integration, we record the initial situation, the tested configuration and the result. Acceptance refers to the agreed scope. Open limitations are documented visibly and assigned to a next step with a clear owner. This enables your team to distinguish between proven functionality, a deliberate decision and an assumption that has not yet been confirmed.

Project example as an illustrative scenario

The following scenario is an application example and not a customer reference. An existing customer portal is to summarise long case histories for case handlers. In LLM integration, the first step would be to check which data the portal already knows and which of it is actually required for the summary. A model function must not extend the existing permissions of the logged-in user. Older notes with different confidentiality levels would also have to be taken into account.

For language model integration, a dedicated integration path with limited inputs, time limits and traceable error handling would be created. The pilot would test long histories, incomplete records and temporarily unavailable model services. The user interface would have to distinguish whether a summary is current, comes from an earlier state or could not be created. Saving a summary and reprocessing after changes would be deliberately regulated so that contradictory information states do not exist side by side unnoticed.

Acceptance of the LLM connection would combine functional spot checks with interface tests. What would matter is correct assignment, compliance with access rights and the continued usability of the portal in the event of errors. Runtime and consumption costs would be recorded using representative transactions. The planned results would be a versioned interface contract, an integrated function and checks for critical exceptions. The existing application would remain usable even if the new assistant temporarily cannot deliver a usable response.

Our experience and our engineering approach

We combine custom software development with the technical tasks of introduction and further development. For language model integration, we bring the perspectives of application, integration and operations together in a shared workflow. The functional requirements remain linked to the technical decisions. You work with a defined scope of services and traceable results.

Our experience should be concretely verifiable for your project. In a technical exchange, we therefore explain how we examine the relevant risks, which work results are planned and how your team can assess them. For the LLM connection, we align the roles involved with the actual need. Available references are presented with their respective project and company context; confidential customer details are not used as general advertising claims.

Effort for the LLM connection

Relevant cost drivers are token volume, request frequency, peak load and additional review effort per transaction. We therefore calculate LLM integration on the basis of a defined scope and explicitly stated prerequisites. An initial analysis step can be useful if key technical information is still missing. Work packages and acceptance criteria can then be agreed on a more reliable basis.

Language model integration can be organised as a limited project, as a joint implementation with your team or with subsequent support. Rights of use, access, documentation and responsibilities are clarified in the contract. Ongoing operating hours, response times and external consumption costs are subject to separate agreements. This keeps it clear which services are provided once and which tasks arise regularly after the introduction.

Scope boundaries of LLM integration

The integration replaces neither functional data cleansing nor a complete redesign of the existing application. For model integration, we already set out this boundary in the proposal. Required additional services are included with their functional justification and are not silently assumed. This allows your team to plan suitable internal skills and divide the overall service sensibly among those involved.