Inside Syncrvm
· 7 MIN READ
Why I created Syncrvm
I created Syncrvm after seeing the same pattern again and again: businesses outgrow the systems that were supposed to support them.
Most businesses do not have a shortage of tools. The problem is that their tools, data and processes eventually stop keeping up with the way the business actually works. Syncrvm exists to solve that problem.
I kept seeing the same problem
While working with clients - and before that, working directly inside CRM systems - I started noticing the same pattern over and over again.
It usually begins with choosing and buying a CRM such as HubSpot. Then, often during an early period of fast growth, a relatively small team starts filling the database, adding workflows, connecting new tools, creating properties, pipelines and reports.
At first, everything works.
Then the company grows, and the system starts looking less and less like the business it is supposed to represent. New teams appear. Roles change. Exceptions are added to processes. New data sources and reporting requirements arrive. The people who originally built the foundations of the system have left the company or moved on to completely different responsibilities.
Documentation either does not exist or covers only a fraction of the setup, because for a long time everyone more or less knew how things worked.
Until they don't.
There are really two layers here. The first is the organisation itself: its culture, communication, management style, ownership, employee turnover and the way work is actually done.
The second is how that reality has been translated into software.
I don't think these two things can be considered separately.
Even a perfectly configured CRM will not fix a situation where two people understand the same process stage differently, nobody knows who owns a particular piece of information, or every department has its own definition of an "active customer".
So the interesting question becomes:
How do you connect business practice, communication and ordinary human behaviour with the rigid logic of software?
More automation doesn't fix a broken system
Bill Gates hasn't exactly had the best press lately, but he once made a very good point: automation makes an efficient operation more efficient, but it also magnifies the inefficiency of an inefficient one.
I would add another layer to that.
It matters not only what we automate, but also how we automate it.
There are usually many ways to produce the same result. In a business environment, the simpler design is usually the better one. It is easier to understand, document, hand over, extend and - importantly - debug.
That sounds obvious. Reality has a habit of proving otherwise. A company has a problem, so someone creates a workflow. An exception appears, so a condition is added. Then another exception appears, so a second workflow is created. The team needs to know which path a record followed, so a new property is added. Reporting needs the same information, so another list appears. An integration does not quite fit the existing logic, so another workaround is built around it. Every one of those decisions may be perfectly reasonable on its own.
Together, they can create a system nobody ever actually designed.
A few years later, nobody can confidently explain what really controls the process.
Several automations update the same property. One reacts to a value written by another. A manual edit triggers a third. An integration overwrites the value again an hour later.
Technically, everything may still be working exactly as configured. The system has simply stopped being predictable.
The same thing happens to data. A property created three years ago once had a very precise meaning. Today, marketing uses it one way, sales interprets it slightly differently, and a management report relies on yet another assumption.
The dashboard works. The number is there. But what exactly does it mean?
Integrations create another version of the same problem. The fact that a value successfully moves from system A to system B does not mean the integration has solved anything useful. Sometimes it simply distributes bad information faster.
That is why I have become increasingly sceptical of solving every CRM problem with another workflow, another property or another integration.
A USEFUL RULE
Automation amplifies the process you give it. It does not make a bad process good.
At some point, you need to stop asking "What else can we automate?" and start asking "Why does this process work this way in the first place?"
The CRM is not the system
It is easy to think of HubSpot as the centre of a company's infrastructure, especially when a large part of the day-to-day work happens there.
In reality, a business process rarely begins and ends in one application.
There is the CRM, but there is also an ERP. Website forms. Excel or Google Sheets files that were supposed to be temporary but somehow entered their third year of production use. Make, Zapier or a custom API integration. Customer service software. Email inboxes. Finance tools. Sometimes an application built specifically for the company.
And, more importantly, people.
That matters because a perfectly configured HubSpot portal can still be part of a badly designed system. If a salesperson has to enter the same information in three places, the answer is not necessarily another workflow. If two systems hold different versions of the same fact, you first need to decide which one you trust. If a process works only because one specific person remembers to perform five steps in the correct order, you do not really have a process. You have that person's knowledge.
Over time, I became less interested in the question: "Can we do this in HubSpot?"
Most of the time, the answer is that we can find some way of doing it.
The more useful question is: "Should this be done here?"
Not every process belongs in a CRM. Not every piece of information should be synchronised in both directions. And not every action performed by a person should be automated. A good system is not the one that does the most. It is the one where you understand why every part exists and what it is responsible for.
What I started focusing on instead
Over time, I noticed that I was spending less time asking how something should be configured and more time asking the questions that come before configuration.
Where does this information actually come from? Who owns it? Which system should be the source of truth? These were the questions I started caring about more.
These questions may sound less technical, but in practice they usually determine whether the technical solution will work at all.
A workflow can be perfectly built and still automate the wrong process. A report can be technically accurate while measuring something nobody has clearly defined. An integration can move data exactly as intended while synchronising two different interpretations of the same information.
The configuration itself is rarely the hardest part. The harder part is deciding what the system should actually represent.
One of the questions I find particularly useful is whether somebody who did not build the system could understand why it behaves the way it does. If the answer is no, the solution may work today, but it will probably become somebody else's problem later.
That is where CRM work, at least for me, stops being mainly about software configuration and starts becoming system design.
Why Syncrvm
Syncrvm grew out of wanting to work on exactly these kinds of problems.
Not an isolated workflow without understanding what happens before and after it. Not another property added because somebody needs one more piece of information today. Not an integration where the only measure of success is that data successfully moved from point A to point B.
I wanted to look at the whole setup: the data, the processes, the automations, the integrations and, just as importantly, the people who have to work with all of it every day.
HubSpot is often at the centre of that setup and it is still the platform I work with most. But HubSpot itself is not the goal. There are situations where the right solution belongs in HubSpot, situations where it belongs somewhere else, and situations where the best solution is not another piece of technology at all.
The goal is to create a system that people can trust. One where important data has a clear meaning, responsibilities are understood, automation has a reason to exist and users do not have to guess what the system is trying to tell them.
That is what Syncrvm is built around: treating CRM problems as system problems, not isolated configuration tasks.
What Syncrvm is not
Syncrvm is not about adding automation for the sake of automation. It is not about forcing every process into HubSpot just because HubSpot can technically handle it. And it is definitely not about building complicated systems simply because complexity looks impressive on a diagram.
In a good setup, every tool should have a purpose. Important information should have an owner. It should be clear where data comes from, where it can be changed and which other processes depend on it.
Automation should remove repetitive work, keep processes consistent and enforce rules where machines are more reliable than people. It should not become another layer of infrastructure that nobody wants to touch because no one is quite sure what will break.
I also don't believe that a CRM should have to be rebuilt every time the business changes. A well-designed system should be able to change with it. Not without work, and certainly not without trade-offs, but without having to tear everything down and start again.
For me, simplicity does not mean having fewer workflows or fewer properties at any cost. A complex business will sometimes require a complex system.
A USEFUL RULE
Simplicity means that the complexity has a reason to exist and can still be understood.
Systems should grow with the business
A small company can work perfectly well with a simple CRM. A few pipeline stages, a handful of important properties, some basic automation and a process that everybody understands may be all it needs.
The problem starts when the business stops being small while the system is still based on assumptions from a time when five people could simply ask each other what was happening with a customer.
Growth does not just add more records. It adds people, handoffs, exceptions, reporting requirements and usually a few more tools. Information starts moving between teams that may use it for completely different purposes. Decisions that used to happen informally now need rules. Knowledge that once lived in somebody's head has to be reflected somewhere in the system.
At that point, a CRM that worked extremely well two years ago may suddenly feel like it is holding the company back.
That does not necessarily mean it was badly designed. It may simply have been designed for a company that no longer exists.
This is also why I do not see CRM optimisation as a one-time clean-up project. Business changes continuously, and the systems supporting it need to be reviewed, simplified and adapted along the way. The goal is not to keep adding functionality forever. It is to make sure the system still reflects how the company actually works.
Your business is growing. Your systems should too.
This is just the beginning
Syncrvm is only just starting as a brand, but the thinking behind it has been developing for years through working with CRM systems, automation, integrations and business processes.
I want to use this blog to write about the less obvious problems behind those systems: why correct data can still lead to the wrong conclusion, why an automation can work exactly as designed and still make a process worse, or why teams avoid processes that were carefully built for them.
Those are the problems I find interesting. And they are usually where the real work begins.
Tomasz Miszkin
25.08.2026
Back to Homepage