How to Audit Your D365 F&O Delivery Team Before the First Invoice
SCENARIO
You've just signed a seven-figure D365 Finance & Operations contract. The pitch was excellent. The partner's solution architect walked through your chart of accounts, talked about your intercompany flows, and knew the difference between SysOperation and RunBaseBatch without looking it up.
Fast-forward four months. That architect is on another engagement. The person running your workshops can't explain how the subledger posting framework works. Your project manager is escalating to someone they've never met.
This isn't an edge case. It's the default.
THE PROBLEM IN DEPTH
The A-team-in-sales, B-team-in-delivery pattern is the single most repeated structural complaint in D365 F&O implementations. It shows up across Gartner Peer Insights, G2 reviews, Reddit threads, and in conversations I've had with dozens of finance directors who felt blindsided by it.
The mechanics are straightforward. Large SI partners run their bench like a staffing agency. Pre-sales architects are high-utilisation, high-bill-rate resources who cycle between proposals. The moment your SOW is signed, they move to the next pitch. Delivery is handled by whoever is available, not whoever is best.
The impact compounds. Junior resources make design decisions in the first 8 weeks that shape the entire programme. By the time a senior reviewer catches a problem with the chart of accounts structure or the intercompany elimination setup, rework costs real money.
One data point that should worry every buyer: 55% of D365 F&O implementations run over budget or schedule. Partner staffing instability is a root cause that rarely makes it into the post-mortem, because the partner writes the post-mortem.
WHY IT KEEPS HAPPENING
Three forces keep this pattern alive.
First, the sales cycle rewards presence, not commitment. Partners win deals by fielding impressive people in pitch meetings. There's no contractual mechanism to ensure those same people stay.
Second, the SOW is typically vague on named resources. You'll see "Senior Consultant" or "Solution Architect" as role titles. Not names. Not minimum experience levels. Not tenure commitments. That vagueness is deliberate.
Third, clients don't know what to check. If you've never run a D365 F&O implementation, you don't know that the person configuring your financial dimensions should understand how those dimensions flow through to the trial balance, the financial reporting tree, and the consolidation company setup. You trust the partner to staff appropriately. Sometimes that trust is misplaced.
WHAT GOOD LOOKS LIKE
An audit doesn't have to be adversarial. It's quality assurance. Here's what I ask when I'm reviewing a D365 F&O programme on behalf of a client:
1. Named resources with CVs. Not partner bios. Actual career history. How many full-lifecycle D365 F&O Finance implementations has the lead functional consultant completed? Not "contributed to" or "supported". Completed.
2. Architecture sprint before full commitment. Run a 2-week sprint with the actual delivery team. Give them a real scenario: configure your chart of accounts, set up one legal entity with the correct currency, tax, and financial dimension structure. If they struggle here, they'll struggle everywhere.
3. Continuity clauses in the contract. Specify that key named resources (lead architect, lead functional, data migration lead) must remain on the project for a defined minimum period. Include a remediation clause if they're removed without agreement.
4. Independent design review at week 6. Before the first milestone payment, have someone outside the partner's organisation review the data model, the chart of accounts design, the posting profiles, and the intercompany setup. This is where the expensive mistakes hide.
5. Reference checks with previous clients. Not the references the partner gives you. Find the last three D365 F&O finance implementations this specific team delivered. Call the finance director. Ask about the team, not the partner brand.
WHAT I'D RECOMMEND
If you're about to start a D365 F&O implementation, build the audit into your procurement process. It costs almost nothing compared to the programme budget, and it changes the power dynamic entirely.
If you're already mid-implementation and the team doesn't match what was promised, raise it now. Every week of misaligned resources compounds into rework that hits the budget at month 8.
The partners who are serious about delivery welcome this scrutiny. The ones who resist it are telling you something.
WHAT TO DO NEXT
If you want an independent pair of eyes on your D365 F&O delivery team or programme design, that's what our Solution Blueprint Review is built for.
Subscribe to our weekly D365 F&O implementation tips: Dr Dynamics Newsletter
Or email sales@drdynamics.co.uk to discuss your situation.