Gaps between standard functionality and business requirements are inevitable in any Microsoft Dynamics 365 implementation. However, one key factor separates successful implementations from costly failures: how partners approach these gaps. Many implementations fail because partners rush into design and development without validating gaps in a structured way. This leads to misaligned expectations, unnecessary customizations, and process inefficiencies.
Understanding Gap Validation
One of the most common pitfalls in ERP and CRM implementations is moving straight from gap analysis to design and development without involving the client in a structured gap design workshop.
This approach carries significant risks:
Expectations: Clients may sign off on functional design documents (FDDs) without fully understanding the proposed solution. This can lead to misalignment between the client's expectations and the partner.
Quality: Solution architects might lack visibility into how a gap fits into the overall organizational landscape, which can lead to the development of complicated or unnecessary customizations.
Solution Design: The extensions designed might close gaps in isolation but introduce unintended downstream process issues.
Microsoft's Success by Design methodology emphasizes the importance of structured discussions on gaps. Many partners fail to recognize that gap design is not just about documenting gaps or conducting a deeper analysis. Gap design with the client means challenging the gaps and validating how they fit into the overall solution. In this post, I discuss the right approach to gap design in Dynamics 365 implementations.
Common Pitfalls in Gap Design—and How to Avoid Them
Many Dynamics 365 delivery teams fall into the trap of treating gaps as isolated requirements rather than elements that connect parts of business processes. When consultants rush from analysis to design and then development, they risk creating costly, unnecessary customizations that don't align with the overall solution.
Below are some of the most common pitfalls in gap design.
Skipping the Gap Design Workshop
After the analysis phase, many partners jump straight into writing the Functional Design Document (FDD), submitting the documentation to the client with an estimate, and then writing the technical specs of the extension. However, designing the functional specs and starting development at this stage will cause many problems:
First, the client lacks a clear vision of how the solution will work. They might sign off based on trust in the solution architect or the lead consultant. The team may not know the new technology well, so they cannot make an informed decision about how the partner intends to address the gap.
Likewise, the solution architect does not fully understand how the extension fits into the overall business process landscape. Insights from the analysis workshops are still unstructured and do not describe end-to-end business processes. While project management tools like Azure DevOps and MS Projects track deliverables, they are not sufficient for visualizing business process flows.
Without structured gap design workshops and process mapping, teams risk developing isolated customizations that disrupt operations.
Treating Every Gap as a Customization Instead of Challenging It
During a Dynamics 365 implementation, more gaps often emerge from process misalignment rather than missing system functionality. As such, most gaps should be challenged with changes in how client teams operate to take advantage of standard features.
Some partners approach gap design with the mindset that every gap requires customization. This leads to over-customization, where unnecessary extensions complicate the system in an attempt to meet client demands.
Overly complex customizations often stem from either a reluctance to challenge clients' requests or a lack of structured evaluation in gap design. When consultants act as order-takers rather than advisors, unnecessary extensions accumulate, complicating future upgrades and maintainability.
Designing every gap found in the analysis phase increases implementation costs and complexity. It also creates technical debt, making future upgrades and maintenance harder.
A well-run gap design workshop should include challenge steps. The solution architect assesses whether the gap can be addressed through process change rather than customization. This challenge should not be seen as criticism of the client's process. Instead, it’s an opportunity to work together and design the extension collaboratively.
Designing in Isolation Instead of Considering the End-to-End Process
Another common mistake is designing solutions in a silo, focusing on an individual gap rather than the overall solution architecture.
When custom development starts too soon, development teams create extensions and customizations that address gaps in isolation. This can create problems in other areas or features related to the gaps. Typically, this approach creates issues for upstream and downstream processes that are not directly related to the gap.
Customization done in isolation can also affect reporting and integrations, resulting in costly rework and fixes. This misalignment does not emerge until user acceptance testing (UAT) when users test the new system. A common symptom of misaligned development is when users can perform transactions with the new capabilities introduced by the customization but cannot complete the testing of a business process.
Without a holistic approach to gap design, even well-designed customizations can create more problems than they solve.
How to Fix Gap Design and Deliver Value for Your Customers
Fixing gap design isn't just about reducing customizations; it's about ensuring that every extension provides real value to the organization. By shifting the focus from isolated requirements to business-driven solutions, Microsoft Partners can design and deliver scalable, maintainable, and user-friendly solutions.
Below are key strategies for improving gap design and ensuring customers get the most out of their Dynamics 365 investment.
Conduct Gap Design Workshops to Validate the Solution
Instead of jumping straight into design and development, partners should hold a structured Gap Design Workshop before finalizing the Functional Design Document (FDD).
The solution architect presents the proposed design using business process diagrams and the client's documentation provided. If time allows, a partly configured sandbox can also be used for simple walkthroughs or a proof of concept. This helps the team understand the proposed design.
The delivery team should prepare diagrams and visual representations to provide high-level summaries in the implementation process wherever possible. Visuals offer a clear method for communicating plans and designs among team members and executives.
Typically, the solution architect leads the gap design workshop, even if the delivery team presents the solutions as a whole. Each solution must have a clearly assigned owner within the delivery team. The owner should be the functional consultant responsible for the specific business area.
For example, the finance consultant and the supply chain consultant capture the gaps for their areas in the proposed solution. In simple Dynamics 365 projects, such as Business Central, one lead consultant can own all the gaps.
The workshop commences with the delivery team providing a concise overview of the top gaps and proposed solutions. Detailed discussions on each gap solution follow. After all gap solutions are presented, the remaining time is dedicated to questions directly with the architect.
At the end of the workshop, the team documents the design of the solutions. This documentation translates into technical specs, including risks and issues related to the solutions. Risks related to security or system performance issues caused by the proposed customizations must be documented.
Fostering discussions about the scope and approach during the session is essential. The solution architect offers guidance as needed, but these meetings are strictly for review and not for design purposes.
The client's feedback may require more revisions to the plan. The delivery team will be responsible for creating the detailed design afterward.
Challenge Process Gaps Before Customizing
A key step in gap design should be challenging process gaps, not just accepting them as work items to be delivered. For each process-related gap, the solution architect must explore whether a standard process change can address the need.
The conversation should start with the business value and justification for the gap. An alternative must always be suggested, even if it was deemed unviable in previous discussions. Partners should be objective and transparent when challenging the gap; even mentioning manual data entry as an alternative shows the client the time savings and lower risks of inaccurate data in the system as the only benefits of using custom development.
If customization is necessary, it must be validated against the target operating model, not just legacy practices. This target is often aligned with the organization’s overall WHY, or the business case of the entire project.
Benefits of Challenging Gaps Before Design
Challenging gaps before design results in many benefits:
It reduces unnecessary customizations, making the system easier to maintain and upgrade.
It aligns the system with best practices, ensuring the solution evolves with Microsoft's roadmap.
It speeds up implementation, as process changes are often more rapid than custom development.
(For a deeper dive, see my other blog post on *Fit-Gap vs. Business Process Reengineering.
Align Gap Design With End-to-End Business Processes
To prevent isolated customizations from disrupting operations, partners must ensure that each gap fits within the broader business process framework.
Every gap should be mapped to the business process it affects, not just the feature it modifies. Before development starts, the proposed design must be validated against upstream and downstream process flows.
For example, a gap in sales order creation must always be validated against the sales invoicing process and the order fulfillment processes.
Involving the client's team in the gap design helps them understand how the overall solution will work. This increases collaboration, engagement, and overall trust in the delivery team.
Clients involved in gap design reviews make informed decisions. This reduces resistance, increases adoption, and makes users more likely to embrace the solution.
Final Thoughts: Gap Design as a Competitive Advantage
Structured gap design workshops are not just a best practice; they are a competitive advantage.
By proactively aligning system changes with business processes, partners can minimize project risks, reduce customizations, and ensure sustainable implementations. If you’re a Microsoft Partner looking to refine your approach, embed structured gap validation into your methodology today.
(Interested in more content like this? Subscribe to my updates for expert insights on Microsoft Dynamics 365 implementations.)
Comments