Right now we have separate subscriptions for OpenAI, Anthropic, and a couple of smaller AI services. Each one is useful for different tasks, and we’ve kind of built our workflows around whichever model works best for each piece. It’s a mess from an accounting perspective and from a management perspective—we’re juggling API keys, different rate limits, different documentation, different pricing models.
I’ve been looking at the migration to open source BPM as an opportunity to clean this up. The idea would be to consolidate onto a single subscription that covers 400+ AI models so we’re not bouncing between different tools. On the surface, that sounds like it helps the business case—simpler licensing, clearer costs, probably some savings.
But I’m wondering if it actually simplifies the migration planning itself. Like, does having all the models under one roof change how we approach rebuilding workflows? Does it change the risk calculations? Or does it mostly just clean up the administrative side?
For teams that have done this consolidation, did it actually make the migration smoother, or did we gain accounting clarity at the expense of complexity somewhere else?
Consolidating actually changed how we approached the whole migration, not just the billing side.
When you had five separate subscriptions, you were locked into certain design patterns because you’d optimize each workflow for the specific model you had. Once we consolidated, we suddenly had flexibility we didn’t realize we were missing. We could say “okay, this task actually works better with a different model now that we have access to all of them” without adding a new subscription.
From a migration perspective, that’s significant. Instead of porting workflows that were built around whatever we happened to have at the time, we could actually optimize them for the new BPM platform. We redesigned three workflows just because we had better model options available.
It also simplified standardization. Instead of having scattered documentation and different error handling for each API, we had one set of practices across our whole platform. That’s not huge, but it mattered when we were training people on the new setup.
The main simplification isn’t in planning, it’s in execution. You have one API key, one rate limit structure, one pricing model to think about. That removes a category of problems during migration. You’re not trying to figure out which models to port where, which models are cheaper for which tasks—you just have them all available and you pick the right one. It’s cleaner.
From a migration risk perspective, it doesn’t really change anything. Your workflows still need to work, consolidation or not. But it does mean one less variable to worry about. You’re not managing subscription expiration dates or API changes from multiple vendors during your migration window. That’s worth something.
Consolidation simplifies planning mostly because you reduce decision time. Instead of choosing between five models based on subscription constraints, you have one set of options and you pick the best one for each workflow. It also reduces deployment complexity—you’re managing one integration point instead of five. But from a migration risk standpoint, the consolidation isn’t what determines success. What matters is whether your workflows work on the new BPM platform. Consolidation just makes the process cleaner administratively and often cheaper, which makes the business case stronger. Those are real benefits, but don’t expect it to magically make migration easier. It makes it cleaner.
consolidation cleans up costs and admin work. doesn’t really change migration complexity. benefits are mostly simpler management and better model choice per workflow.
one subscription reduces license fragmentation. simplifies billing and ops. workflows still need validation either way.
We consolidated our subscriptions during our migration and it actually changed how we rebuilt processes. Instead of being locked into certain model choices we’d made when we had five different subscriptions, we could evaluate every workflow fresh and pick the best model for each task. That led to better workflow design overall. The consolidation simplified the conversation with finance too—one line item instead of five meant we could actually show ROI clearly instead of trying to track five separate cost centers. From a technical standpoint, migrating to open source BPM while consolidating onto a platform with access to all major models meant we weren’t constrained by what we happened to have at the time. We had options and could make better choices. It also made training way easier—one set of practices instead of different patterns for different models. What made it really work was that our platform let us access all the models we needed under one subscription while also handling the workflow complexity we required. That combination actually did simplify execution, not just administration. Check out https://latenode.com to see how having all those models available changes what’s possible in your workflows.