Building a more successful workforce with Dynamics 365 Human Resources Microsoft delivers solutions that enable businesses to build winning teams and create a workplace where people can succeed. To help ensure we are providing the very best solutions to empower employees, and as we look at LinkedIn’s unique strengths in the talent acquisition market, we plan to refocus our HR technology roadmap and partnership investments for Dynamics 365 | Read more
2019 release wave 2 Discover the latest updates and new features to Dynamics 365 planned through March 2020
Release overview guides and videos Release Plan | Preview 2020 Release Wave 1 Timeline
Ace your Dynamics 365 deployment with packaged services delivered by expert consultants. | Explore service offerings
Connect with the ISV success team on the latest roadmap, developer tool for AppSource certification, and ISV community engagements | ISV self-service portal
The FastTrack program is designed to help you accelerate your Dynamics 365 deployment with confidence.
FastTrack Program | Finance TechTalks | Customer Engagement TechTalks | Upcoming TechTalks
We have done CDS integration between Talent and FinOps. There is one observation during my testing:
When any modification done to a date effective record, records are not getting updated in FinOps as expected. Though its not an issue "as per Microsoft design" (as stated by Microsoft), this seems a concern for me as a functional consultant as well as for the end user too.
Example: in Talent, lets say I create Emp A as shown below:
CDS is pushing the data to FinOps as it is:
There are 2 scenarios to it.
Lets say if some reason employee has joined organisation one week later, then user edits the record in Talent:
Then FinOps will be updated as shown below:
As per company records, this person is not employed between 1/11/2019 and 10/11/2019, though the system shows different.
Now whatif the person pre-pones ex: some date to 20/10/2019. Then the record cannot be updated because of the error "Insert not supported with the values specified for 'Employment start date' and 'Employment end date'. New record overlaps with multiple existing records."
Even in Talent, we cannot export the same. It will throw same error when you replicate the same scenario. Delete is not supported in CDS. If anybody used CDS between Talent and FinOps, can you plz tell me the workaround for above scenarios.
The above scenarios are applicable for:
Mostly the customer creates all the above ahead of the employee joining. Creating and edning the records are fine but the problem is with Edit dates only.
Any inputs will be helpful.
Hello Pavan, and thank you for this. It is behavior to be aware of –
While I am familiar with Talent and Fin Ops, when it comes to the integration between these and CDS, I can see where this would cause the difficulty. From what I have seen in different scenarios is that the behavior you are seeing is the expected behavior in this integration. We see the one record in Talent, and the two records in Fin Ops.
At the moment I am doing a little more digging about the workaround – my first thought is that if this is a brand new employee, completely removing and reentering the worker itself is ultimately an option. That is an extreme example, but that would set both records correctly in Talent and Fin Ops going forward. My second thought would be a somewhat similar method of removing the employment history through the Employment History forms - but that would need to be done on the Fin Ops (which would require some testing).
Now I do not have as much experience as to the interaction between CDS and Talent/Fin Ops, but I believe this ultimately stems with how Talent can present the data, versus how Fin Ops behaves. But, I do have some other ideas I am looking into as well - will post them here if they offer any other avenues.
Thanks Shenk for your input.
I agree with you that this is a standard behaviour of either Talent or FinOps. No human is perfect and mistakes do happen when entering the data. Delete anyways dual activity to be done manually in both the systems. I expect "edit" part should be handled by either CDS or product itself. CDS is just sending records so I expect product should be able to handle this scenario. Its very common that most of the users use edit part. And there are so many masters which are date effective and each has their own dependency with other master record. Worker fixed comp depends on Position and employment, position assignment depends on position duration and employment etc.
As per our client's process of handling new workers - they create worker, positions, assignment, fixed comp, leave enrolments etc ahead of the joining. Postponing the record will create two records in FO but preponing a record will not be inserted/updated in FinOps and this is worrysome. Employment records are still fine since they know they have to worry about the new starters. Whatif the edit activity has been done on existing positions, durations, hierarchies, worker position assignments, update fixed compensations..phew.
I expect Microsoft should fix or provide some workaround for this. Request you to let us know when you find any workaround for this. Same I will update if I found anyone. I wonder what others who already using CDS between Talent and FinOps, are handling this scenario.
I wanted to give a bit of an update on this one - I found some more information. Currently, like I mentioned above, either removing and reentering the employee completely would then allow for the recreation of the correct employment records. Otherwise, from what it appears to be here, the editing and updating of records would have to be done through Fin Ops directly (basically manually making them sync), as the CDS integration creates the insert and not an update, and causes the problems you mention above.
To your last point - there has been recent discussion in order to correct this issue. From what I have read the Talent team involved with the CDS integration are aware, and working on a possible solution. No further information is available at this time, but it does look like there will be progress on this issue.
Business Applications communities