DR DYNAMICSIn brief
On many D365 F&O programmes the implementation budget expires at cut-over and the partner hands the client to a managed services desk with no knowledge of the configuration. The hardest problems — batch contention at month-end, intercompany eliminations that don't balance, reporting trees that break at production data volumes — surface around week three, not day one. Fund named support from the people who built the system for at least the first 90 days.
The week after go-live, your partner moves onto the next sale. Month 3 is when the real problems arrive.
I see this constantly in D365 F&O programmes. The implementation team’s budget expires at cut-over. Nobody is funded to stabilise. The partner hands you over to a managed services desk that has zero context on your configuration.
Then the real issues surface. Batch contention during month-end close. Intercompany eliminations that don’t balance. A financial reporting tree that worked in UAT but breaks with production data volumes.
These aren’t day-one problems. They’re week-three problems. And the people who built your system are already on another project.
The managed services desk opens a ticket. Assigns a Tier 1 resource. That resource has never seen your chart of accounts.
The structural issue: implementation and stabilisation are treated as separate workstreams with separate budgets. They shouldn’t be. The first 90 days post go-live are when the design decisions get stress-tested by real transaction volumes and real users.
If your go-live plan doesn’t include funded, named support from the people who built the system for at least 90 days, you’re planning to fly blind at the worst possible time.
What did your post-go-live support look like? Was the original team still there?
P.S. We help D365 F&O clients who’ve been left exposed after go-live. Dynamics 365 Finance & Operations Support | Dr Dynamics