1◆11
← · → to navigate
Project
Phoenix
(Tier 1 Automotive Supplier)
D365 CE·Portfolio Case Study
Creston & Co. Dynamics 365 Advisory for Growing Enterprises
Case study — identifying information anonymized
§ 01   Situation
The complexity is not
where people expect it.
2,000emp
Employees
$280M
Revenue
~750usr
End Users
$2.8M/yr
Budget
Scope·Sales · Customer Service · Field Service touchpoints
Delivery·Three regions: North · Mid-West · South
Approach·Phased region by region · 18 months discovery through hyper-care
§ 02   Task
Functional remit.
End-to-end ownership.
Role
Senior Functional Lead
End-to-end solution design
Sales + Customer Service
Requirements → Functional Architecture
Reported to VP Commercial Operations
Program
18 months · Discovery → Hyper-care
Phased: region by region
3 functional consultants
8 developers (Power Platform)
3 BPOs: Sales · CS · Quality & Aftermarket
Architecture decisions  ·  SAP integration patterns  ·  Solution governance
§ 03   The Three Mismatches
Three places CE
breaks a Tier 1 program.
◆
  • I Program vs. Opportunity CE models a sales cycle. Automotive runs a 7-stage product development lifecycle.
  • II Structured Pricing vs. CPQ Cost build-up models with annual price-down clauses vs. catalogue-based configure-price-quote.
  • III Ownership Model vs. Account Owner KAM + Sales Engineer + Program Manager + Commercial Manager vs. a single field.
§ 3.1   Mismatch One
Program
vs. Opportunity
Key insight Nomination → First Revenue:  2–3 years  ·  Development ~18 months  ·  Net 90 days
OOTB D365 CE Model
Opportunity: point-in-time decision
Close date in months
Single Account lookup
Win / Lose / Close
≠
Automotive Reality → Our Solution
Custom Program entity (above Opportunity)
BPF: 7 stage gates with entry criteria
3-tier OEM Account model
D365 lifecycle ↔ SAP cost objects at Go + Launch
RFQ
Go
Dev Start
Design Val
Prod Verify
Launch
Post-SOP
Technical Auth
OEM Headquarters
Global technical authorization · RFQ issuance
→
Commercial
Regional JV Entities
Signs supply agreements
→
Invoice
Manufacturing Plants
Receives invoices · Net 90
§ 3.2   Mismatch Two
◇   In Progress
Structured Pricing
vs. CPQ
  • Automotive pricing = cost build-up: raw materials + manufacturing + quality + management + profit margin
  • Annual price-down clauses baked into multi-year program lifecycle — not a catalogue discount
  • Hundreds of cost lines per RFQ — BOM-level variance per OEM
  • Generic CPQ assumes catalogue SKUs with configure-price-quote logic — fails on cost modelling
  • Solution: [to be added]
§ 3.3   Mismatch Three
◇   In Progress
Ownership Model
vs. Account Owner
  • Single Account Owner field assumes one person owns the relationship — wrong in Tier 1
  • Reality: KAM owns commercial · Sales Engineer owns technical · Program Manager owns delivery · Commercial Manager owns contract
  • Misalignment surfaces in: activity routing, forecast roll-up, access control, pipeline reporting
  • Solution: [to be added]
§ 3.4   The Honest Limit
◇   In Progress
Some logic may not
fully digitize.
  • Full Business Case modelling — the internal cost/investment justification for pursuing a program — lives in Excel for structural reasons
  • Not every failure to digitize is a design failure; some is appropriate human judgment
  • A CRM that forces this into a record is worse than one that acknowledges the boundary
  • Closing observation: [to be added]
§ 04   Action
◇   In Progress
How we uncovered
and solved it.
  • Discovery methodology — the specific workshop techniques that surfaced each mismatch
  • Decision framework: when to customize vs. configure vs. retire the requirement
  • Functional architecture → developer handoff: how governance worked across 8 devs
  • Stakeholder management: VP Commercial Operations, 3 BPOs, regional leads across 3 go-lives
  • Change control and solution governance across 18 months
§ 05   Result
◇   In Progress
Outcomes.
  • Adoption: [TBD — user adoption rate, active usage post go-live per region]
  • Business impact: [TBD — pipeline visibility, forecast accuracy, CS SLA metrics]
  • Delivery: [TBD — on-time / on-budget narrative, phased go-live success]
  • Hyper-care: [TBD — stabilization, escalation handling]
  • Voice of client: [TBD — VP Commercial Operations feedback]
§ 06   Approach & Expertise
◇   In Progress
What this project
demonstrates.
  • Domain depth: Tier 1 automotive CRM complexity — the mismatches that standard implementations miss
  • Delivery at scale: functional lead on an 18-month, multi-region, multi-team program
  • The pattern: trusted at VP level, led cross-functional teams, owned architecture decisions end-to-end
  • Approach to fit-gap: knowing when the standard model is wrong before the build starts
  • Closing statement: [to be added]