I think the initial challenge with this question is the assumption of integrated talent management (system) as being technology or tool based.
From a business perspective, talent management, like any other complex system, is made up of separate components that interact. Talent management systems are built upon stated or implied philosophical beliefs about talent and talent management. Those foundational beliefs lead naturally to principles, which then drive and support practices.
Philosophically (which will define a component of the culture) does an organization believe in differentiation, or treating everyone exactly the same? Do they believe people grow and develop most in their areas of strength, or they believe every weakness is a "development opportunity area"? These answers provide the information to establish operating principles. If your organization believes in differentiation, then they naturally will apply it first at the organizational level (defining capability areas as strategic, strategy supporting, or business necessity - or some similar model), then apply the key role, high performer, high potential model to achieve superior performance through superior talent positioning. This same differentiation principle would support a strengths-based talent model that would create a training and development model that works to grow the most valuable strengths of each individual and not waste time trying to get someone from a 1 to a 1.175 in ‘Managing Conflict' by sending them to multiple seminars and workshops to acquire knowledge they have no motivation to apply.
What I hear in the question is an attempt to connect the practices, but no discussion of the foundational components that support them. But if the model includes these foundation pieces across the activities they create the infrastructure for the integration you're looking for. When you have those philosophies identified, in my example strengths-based, integrating the components is a much more straightforward exercise. The outcomes and related activities become more obvious and the metrics flow from those assumptions. They also provide the criteria upon which decisions can be made, but most important drive the day-to-day behaviors that are the fiber of the integration or "where the rubber of integration meets the road'.
And you can create all the processes you want, with or without technology that ‘enforce them', but you can't mandate valuable meaningful content.
And separately, if you look at the value of talent management within a prioritized framework of Level 1 (most valuable): Business Impact, Level 2: Effectiveness, and (least valuable) Level 3: Efficiency - technology will always be applied first and most at the lowest level based upon the "least common denominator" principle. To sell to the masses, it must do only? the most basic things in the simplest of ways. Unforutnately, once that model technology design is implemented within the application it's design limits its expansion.
