Deploying Microsoft Dynamics 365 solutions requires specialized expertise many organizations source from partners.
But should Dynamics 365 support services like training, enhancement projects and daily sustainment be handled by the same external provider that implemented the solutions?
Below we dive deep across eight key decision drivers – spanning cost optimization, delivery quality, risk balancing, knowledge continuity, relational governance, feature roadmaps, collaboration dynamics and cultural alignment – that should guide unified services evaluation.
1. Cost Efficiency and Transparency
Consolidating implementation and support under one vendor enables volume pricing efficiencies from larger combined contracts.
Discount tiers lower effective hourly rates at higher cumulative spend thresholds. However, assessing genuine TCO beyond validated partner rates is crucial.
Factor longer-term expenses like solution switching penalties, training new resources, fixing inherited technical debt, Clara and productivity loss from degraded apps.
Uneven project hand-offs also bleed costs. What looks cheaper upfront can expensive over time if quality suffers. Require transparent pricing and earnbacks for failed KPIs.
2. Delivery Quality and Accountability
Rigorously vet both project implementation and ongoing support qualifications upfront and in parallel – requiring demonstrated capability, experienced named resources, happy reference customers, progress milestones, and aligned operational processes.
Objectively define measurable SLAs spanning response times, resolution frequency, uptime, user satisfaction plus progress tracking via scorecards.
Consolidation under unified agreements simplifies quality governance across services.
However, verify internal governance to prevent erosion without market competition. Evaluate cost-quality trade-offs holistically, not just rates.
3. Risk Balancing Across Dimensions
Concentrating mission critical Dynamics workloads under one vendor elevates business continuity risks if that partner underperforms or becomes unviable.
Remediating new solutions or supporting vendors mid-stream carries tangible hard dollar costs and productivity impacts.
Multi-vendor delivery blend provides redundancy layers if one component degrades but incurs additional governance overhead.
Calculate total risk exposure – factoring severity, likelihood, and detectability predictors – across supplier viability, staff churn, IP loss, degrading SLAs, and transition friction.
4. Knowledge Transfer and Solution Context
Having the same provider implementation teams transition to long-term support creates a built-in domain context but requires thoughtful interchange models to prevent silos.
Separate vendors enable division of delivery focus but fracture working knowledge requiring extensive documentation handoffs. Blending some rotating shared talent across project phases bridges context gaps.
Measure knowledge continuity rigorously based on outcome KPIs versus theoretical access alone to demand demonstrated proficiency. Assess toolchain maturity alongside process governance here.
5. Governance and Administration Overhead
Managing disconnected vendors divides accountability, complicates budgeting, and duplicates coordination touchpoints.
However, concentrated reliance on one vendor limits governance levers if issues arise.
Ensure consolidated pricing agreements, status reports, SteerCo membership, and executive oversight but enforce accountability via severable performance metrics not just aggregate status.
Auditing across independent providers also provides comparative analytics on execution effectiveness and cost benchmarking unavailable with a sole vendor model.
6. Roadmap and Innovation Alignment
Consolidating implementation and sustainment under the same provider fosters tighter collaboration between project teams and product managers.
This unity unlocks innovation opportunities unavailable separating vendor domains since enhancements can build directly on deployment learnings.
But guardrails ensuring diligent requirements definition, design reviews and regression testing are crucial to prevent technical debt accrual regardless of team structure.
7. Team Communication and Collaboration
Unified models align staff incentives towards shared outcomes and tend to foster closer human connections between sustainment engineers supporting systems and consultants deploying them.
Impromptu conversations and tribal knowledge sharing intrinsically bolster solution quality and end-user alignment.
However, some separation between run and change facilitators provides operational redundancy during failures. Assessing relationships and chemistry significantly impacts end-to-end governance.
8. Cultural Compatibility and Trust
Successful long-term engagements require cultural compatibility and mutual trust for longevity whether on aggregated or separated teams.
However, governance policies and staffing flexibility are easily influenced under direct control. Hand-offs between distinct vendors double transition touchpoints vulnerable to trust gaps.
However cultural signaling and interviews during unified vendor selection stages boost continuity.
Require demonstrated retention and rapid staff substitutions without skill degradation in contracts.
