Why Most Dynamics 365 Programmes Fail to Deliver Finance Value

Why Most Dynamics 365 Programmes Fail to Deliver Finance Value

Microsoft Dynamics 365 has become one of the most widely adopted ERP platforms for mid market and enterprise finance functions. The promise is compelling. Standardised processes. Real time insight. Lower operating cost. Better controls. A modern finance function positioned as a strategic partner to the business.

Yet despite significant investment, many finance leaders privately acknowledge the same uncomfortable truth. Their Dynamics 365 programme went live, but the value case never fully materialised.

The system works. The organisation moved on. But the finance function is not materially faster, cheaper, or more insightful than before.

This is not a Microsoft problem. Nor is it a question of software capability. In our experience, value leakage is driven by a consistent set of structural and behavioural issues that appear across most Dynamics 365 finance programmes.

Understanding these failure points is essential for CFOs and transformation leaders who want to avoid repeating the same outcome.

The core misconception. ERP delivery equals finance transformation

The single biggest reason Dynamics 365 programmes fail to deliver finance value is a flawed starting assumption. Organisations treat ERP delivery as synonymous with finance transformation.

In reality, ERP implementation is a technical milestone. Finance transformation is an operating model change.

Most programmes are mobilised around scope, configuration, integrations, and data migration. The success criteria are framed around go live, budget adherence, and defect closure. Value is assumed to follow automatically once the system is live.

It rarely does.

Finance value only emerges when processes are simplified, decision rights are clarified, behaviours change, and performance is actively managed post go live. These elements sit largely outside the traditional ERP delivery construct.

As a result, organisations declare success too early and move on before the hard work of value realisation begins.

Process design is theoretical, not empirical

Dynamics 365 programmes typically begin with process design workshops. Future state processes are defined using templates, best practice libraries, and consultant experience.

What is often missing is objective evidence of how finance actually operates today.

Without empirical process data, design decisions are based on perception rather than fact. Bottlenecks are misdiagnosed. Exceptions are underestimated. Local workarounds are ignored. Manual effort is hidden.

The result is a future state that looks clean on paper but does not reflect operational reality.

When the system goes live, teams recreate old behaviours inside the new tool. Manual journals persist. Spreadsheets proliferate. Work is pushed outside the system to meet deadlines.

The organisation has modernised its technology, but not its processes.

Data quality is treated as a migration issue, not a finance capability

Most Dynamics 365 programmes underestimate the structural importance of data quality to finance value.

Data is often treated as a one off migration activity. Clean what is needed to go live, move the balances, and address issues later.

This approach ignores a critical point. Finance value depends on ongoing data discipline, not historical data correctness.

Poor master data governance, inconsistent transaction coding, and uncontrolled local variants all undermine reporting, forecasting, and control. Over time, confidence in the numbers erodes and finance reverts to manual validation and offline analysis.

The system technically works, but trust does not.

High performing finance functions treat data ownership, data standards, and data quality monitoring as core capabilities. Most Dynamics 365 programmes do not.

Governance focuses on delivery risk, not value risk

Programme governance structures are heavily weighted towards delivery control. Milestones. RAID logs. Change requests. Budget tracking.

What is rarely governed with the same rigour is value realisation.

Few programmes maintain a live value case beyond business case approval. Even fewer track whether cycle times, cost to serve, or control effectiveness are actually improving post go live.

When value erosion occurs, it is often invisible to senior leadership. The programme is closed. The team is disbanded. Accountability dissipates.

Without explicit value governance, there is no mechanism to course correct when benefits fail to materialise.

Operating model decisions are deferred or diluted

Dynamics 365 is often positioned as an enabler of shared services, centralisation, and standardisation. In practice, many organisations avoid making the operating model decisions required to realise these benefits.

Local variations are retained to maintain stakeholder buy in. Legacy roles are preserved to reduce disruption. Global process ownership is nominal rather than real.

The result is a system configured for standardisation but operated through a fragmented model.

Finance teams continue to duplicate effort across entities. Centres of excellence lack authority. Decision making remains slow and escalatory.

The technology is global. The operating model is not.

Capability gaps are masked during delivery

During implementation, organisations rely heavily on system integrators and temporary resources. Expertise is abundant. Issues are resolved quickly. Performance appears strong.

Once the programme ends, that capability disappears.

Internal teams often lack deep process ownership, system understanding, or analytical skills. Over time, small issues compound. Enhancements are deferred. Workarounds become permanent.

The finance function gradually loses control of its own system.

Sustainable value requires deliberate capability transfer, not just system handover. Most programmes underinvest in this area.

Post go live optimisation is underfunded and deprioritised

Perhaps the most predictable failure point is what happens after go live.

Budgets are exhausted. Leadership attention shifts. The organisation is fatigued. Optimisation becomes discretionary spend rather than a core investment.

Yet this is precisely the phase where value is created.

Process mining, performance analytics, automation opportunities, and control optimisation all sit post go live. Without structured investment in these areas, the organisation locks in suboptimal performance.

Go live becomes the end of the journey rather than the beginning.

What high value programmes do differently

Programmes that consistently deliver finance value behave differently from the outset.

They start with empirical process insight rather than workshops alone. They treat data quality as an ongoing finance capability. They govern value realisation with the same discipline as delivery risk.

They make hard operating model decisions early. They invest deliberately in internal capability. And they fund post go live optimisation as a non negotiable phase.

Most importantly, they define success in finance terms. Faster close. Lower cost to serve. Better forecasting accuracy. Stronger controls. Improved decision support.

Technology enables these outcomes. It does not guarantee them.

A final reflection for CFOs

Dynamics 365 is a powerful platform. When implemented well, it can materially improve finance performance.

But CFOs should be clear eyed. ERP programmes do not fail because the software is inadequate. They fail because value is assumed, not engineered.

Finance value requires evidence, governance, operating model clarity, and sustained leadership attention long after go live.

Without these, organisations risk delivering exactly what they asked for. A new system. And very little else.