Hello everyone,
Apologies if I’m not posting in the right place. I actually don’t know F&O much, but hoping to learn. I’m a Product Manager and we’re currently evaluating whether a customer challenge we’re seeing is a common Dynamics 365 Finance & Operations pattern or simply an isolated implementation issue.
We recently met with a customer running Dynamics 365 Finance & Operations integrated with Dynamics CRM. Their current integration works, but over time it has become increasingly difficult to maintain because:
- Adding new fields requires development work
- Updating mappings requires code changes and redeployment
- Business users cannot make modifications themselves
- Small changes can take days or weeks to implement
The customer’s primary complaint is that the integration has become highly dependent on developers and is difficult to adapt as business requirements evolve.
Wondering, is this an issue we’ve seen a lot? We’re exploring a solution where we can create a product where the client can rely upon config instead of code, shifting more burden to functional users as opposed to developers.
Hi Beringer_Wai,
Welcome to the group, and great question. No need to apologize for not knowing F&O deeply; the pattern you’re describing has nothing to do with F&O specifically.
What you’re describing (dev-dependent field mapping, code changes for every small tweak, business users locked out of the integration layer) is a very common pain point in D365 F&O ↔ CRM integrations, especially ones built a few years ago on custom code or early-generation middleware. It tends to show up once the business starts changing faster than the integration was designed to.
We’ve worked with organizations running Dynamics 365 Finance & Operations alongside Dynamics 365 CRM where common challenges include:
· New fields requiring developer involvement
· Mapping changes needing code updates and deployments
· Limited flexibility for functional teams
· Growing maintenance effort as the solution evolves
In many cases, these issues are less about Dynamics itself and more about the original integration design and governance model. Depending on the architecture, we’ve helped customers move toward more configuration-driven approaches using Microsoft’s integration stack and integration best practices, significantly reducing ongoing development effort.
I’d be interested to understand how the customer’s current integration has been implemented (Dual-write, Dataverse, Azure Integration Services, custom APIs, Logic Apps, middleware, etc.). That context usually determines whether this is an architectural issue or an implementation-specific one.
Happy to exchange ideas if it would be helpful. Reach out at ksudharsan@brightpointinfotech.com
Hey @beringer_wai
We’ve been working on this exact challenge with various customers, F&O + CRM integrations that get stuck in custom code cycles.
Your Questions:
Is this a common pattern?
Yes. Most integrations start with custom code, then become developer-dependent as requirements evolve.
Is config-driven the solution?
Partially. We use Dataverse Virtual Tables for native F&O-CRM sync, then Power Automate for business logic. This eliminates custom code and allows business users to manage changes directly.
Is there a market?
Yes. There’s significant demand from customers looking to transition from hard-coded integrations to flexible, configuration-driven solutions.
Our Experience:
We recently completed a similar implementation for a customer. They migrated from a custom integration to Dataverse Virtual Tables + Power Automate. Result: deployment cycles went from 2-3 weeks to hours, and business users now manage mappings independently.
This community is valuable because real practitioners share solutions based on actual experience. If you’d like to explore this further and understand the technical architecture, we’d be happy to discuss.
Let me know your availability, we can setup a call accordingly!
Keep growing!
Email here
Thank you both for the really insightful comments!
One thing I’m trying to better understand is where the line exists between an architecture problem and a product opportunity.
From your experience:
- How frequently do you encounter organizations looking to replace or modernize existing F&O ↔ CRM integrations because they have become too developer-dependent?
- After moving customers to approaches such as Dual Write, Virtual Tables, Power Automate, or other Microsoft-native solutions, what challenges still remain?
- Are there recurring gaps that customers continue to struggle with (mapping maintenance, governance, monitoring, change management, deployment processes, etc.)?
- Do customers typically view these projects as one-time consulting engagements, or do they express interest in managed/subscription-based solutions that simplify ongoing integration management?
My goal is to understand whether we’re primarily seeing implementation issues with existing technologies or whether there is a broader need for a more configurable integration layer that reduces long-term maintenance effort.
Appreciate any additional perspective from those who have worked through similar modernization efforts.
Hi @beringer_wai
Here’s what we’re seeing:
How common is this?
Very. About 60-70% of F&O + CRM customers we work with struggle with this. It’s a real market.
Do native solutions (Virtual Tables, Dual Write, Power Automate) solve it?
Mostly, but not completely. They handle 80% well. The gaps that remain:
- Mapping Governance - No approval process for changes
- Complex Transformations - Still need custom logic
- Monitoring & Auditing, No centralized audit trail
- Deployment, Moving changes across environments requires technical knowledge
- Change Validation, Hard to test before production
Recurring customer struggles:
Governance, monitoring, deployment, and change management. Even after modernization.
Consulting vs. Managed Service?
Customers want both. Initial modernization (3-6 months), then ongoing managed service for operations.
Product Opportunity:
The gap isn’t replacing Virtual Tables or Power Automate. It’s the operational layer above them - governance, monitoring, deployment, change management. That’s where customers feel the pain.
Most don’t want to manage this themselves. They want a managed service or product that handles it.
The market is real. The need is clear.
Let’s talk if you want to explore this further.