Why We Skipped the ADP API — A Practical Case for CFOs
- Erin Liles
- Jul 21
- 3 min read
In an age where APIs are hailed as the future of integration, choosing not to use one can feel counterintuitive — even contrarian. But in finance, the smartest solutions are often the simplest — especially when they reduce long-term support, avoid tech debt, and align directly with business operations.
That’s exactly why we built a payroll data pipeline for a national healthcare organization without using ADP’s API — and why it turned out to be the best financial decision.
What We Were Solving For
We needed to integrate payroll data into the data warehouse to automate accounting processes, including journal entries and allocations, without burdening the IT department.
The payroll team already downloaded two reports biweekly as part of their process:
Statistical Summary Report — downloaded both before and after payroll is processed
Standard Payroll History Report — contains employee-level details after payroll is finalized
Rather than create a new technical process, we built our pipeline around this existing workflow.
The result? A system fully owned by the payroll team, with no need for engineers to monitor, troubleshoot, or maintain it.
Why We Chose Not to Use the ADP API
Yes, ADP has an API. No, we didn’t use it. Here’s why:
1. The Documentation Is Poor
Getting started with ADP’s API is notoriously frustrating. The docs are vague, inconsistent, and often outdated — which leads to wasted time, support tickets, and guesswork.
2. It’s Unreliable
The API has a reputation for instability, including timeout errors and schema inconsistencies. That’s unacceptable when the goal is repeatable, auditable payroll processing.
3. It Requires Engineering Ownership
Unlike the file-based approach, an API integration requires someone technical to own and maintain it — from authentication refreshes to error handling. That introduces long-term cost and risk.
4. We Didn’t Need Real-Time Data
Payroll is processed every two weeks. Real-time sync wasn’t necessary — we just needed accurate data on a predictable cadence.
5. The ROI Was Negative
Given the time to set up, maintain, and monitor the integration, the API’s cost in engineering hours far outweighed any potential gains in convenience.
What We Did Instead
We used the exact reports payroll already downloads — dropped into databricks and automatically ingested. From there, we layered on reconciliation logic, alerting, and reporting — all without disrupting payroll’s process or involving IT on an ongoing basis.
Here’s what that bought us:
Stability: We aligned with a known-good process that payroll already owns
Auditability: Pre- and post-payroll snapshots provided natural validation points
Zero maintenance: No engineers needed post-setup
Operational ownership: Payroll runs the process, not a technical team
Cost-Benefit Snapshot
Category | File-Based Pipeline | ADP API Integration |
Ownership | Payroll (non-technical) | Data/Engineering Team |
Setup Complexity | Low | High – poor documentation, setup hurdles |
Maintenance Cost | None | Ongoing support, error handling |
Auditability | High – mirrors existing workflow | Medium – requires additional validation logic |
Risk | Low – stable and predictable | High – API outages and technical reliance |
Estimated Annual Cost | ~$0 after setup | $10,000–$30,000 in ongoing support time |
The Bigger Lesson for Finance Leaders
This isn’t just about ADP. It’s about how we think about automation in finance. Just because something is “technically possible” doesn’t mean it’s the best solution. Tools should serve the business — not the other way around.
When evaluating integration options, don’t just ask:
“Can we use the API?”
Instead, ask:
“Who owns this when it breaks — and how much will that cost us?”
In our case, using a simple, reliable file-based approach saved time, reduced risk, and empowered the business to own its own process. That’s the kind of automation finance teams need more of.
Comments