“Ever felt like your Dynamics support turns into an endless loop of emails, with no one truly owning the problem or understanding your business continuity?”
You’re not alone. Many Dynamics customers quietly live this frustration – a cycle of delayed fixes, generic responses, and consultants who seem to be discovering your system for the first time.
The Root of the Problem
In my experience, the issue isn’t the product – it’s the support model.
Too often, partners hand over post-implementation support to the most inexperienced members of their team. They’re fresh, cheap, and enthusiastic – but rarely equipped to handle the nuanced, cross-module problems that real businesses face daily.
A small posting error suddenly becomes a research topic. A transaction that once worked stops posting, and suddenly you’re in a week-long communication marathon with no real progress.
The outcome? The credibility of a well-implemented Dynamics system starts eroding – not because of bad design, but because of weak continuity.
Real-world impact: When a simple dimension posting error becomes a multi-day investigation involving three different junior consultants who each start from scratch, month-end closing gets delayed. For a mid-sized manufacturer, that can mean delayed decisions, overtime costs, and frustrated finance teams - all because context was lost in the handoff.
Who Should Really Handle Support
In an ideal world, support should be managed by either the original implementation team or by a group of seasoned consultants who understand both the product and how real-world businesses operate.
These professionals stay updated with every wave of product evolution. They’ve seen enough varied implementations to recognize recurring pain points and apply practical fixes instead of textbook answers.
They don’t just resolve errors – they restore continuity.
Why the Discussion Never Happens
Ironically, this problem is completely preventable.
All it takes is a transparent, early discussion with the customer about what kind of support they actually need – and what that costs.
But this conversation rarely makes it to the project kickoff table. Support planning remains a footnote – discussed briefly, costed minimally, and forgotten until chaos strikes.
When partners neglect to define support structure, scope, and accountability, customers end up paying twice: once for the implementation, and again for the mess that follows.
The Escalation Trap
When the support desk can’t resolve an issue, the next stop is usually Microsoft escalation – and here’s where things get trickier.
In most cases, even Microsoft support engineers struggle, not because they lack expertise, but because they lack context. They didn’t design your setup, don’t know your specific business rules, and can only rely on the knowledge base – which is vast, but generic.
So before they can even begin solving the problem, they spend days just piecing together the background. By the time they understand what’s really going on, the business impact is already felt.
That’s not a failure of Microsoft – it’s a symptom of a context gap that only your partner’s experienced consultants can bridge.
Redesigning the Support Mindset
Support isn’t a cost to minimize; it’s a continuation of the implementation.
Here’s how partners can get it right:
- Define support scope upfront: Clarify what’s included, escalation paths, and SLA expectations before go-live, not after.
- Balance experience levels: Blend juniors with seniors who shadow and mentor for the first few months. No consultant should handle production issues solo until they’ve completed a defined shadowing period.
- Invest in ongoing learning: Regular product updates, cross-project exposure, and sandbox testing keep the team current with new features and emerging best practices.
- Document institutional wisdom: Build an internal knowledge base with recurring issues, business scenarios, and their resolutions. This protects against team turnover.
- Measure continuity, not just closure: Track recurring errors, average resolution time, first-contact resolution rate, and prevent repeat disruptions. These KPIs matter more than ticket counts.
The Bottom Line
A Dynamics solution is only as good as its post-go-live support.
Under-resourced, poorly structured support teams undo months of smart implementation. Investing in experienced, accountable support isn’t an expense – it’s insurance for business continuity.
Because once go-live is done, support isn’t the end of the project – it’s the beginning of its real test.
About the Author
Written by Snehanshu Mandal, Founder of DynaExperts Consulting LLP - a Business Central architect with 24+ years in NAV/BC development, consulting, and project leadership. Having worked with global Microsoft partners, he's seen what makes (and breaks) Dynamics implementations long after go-live. His belief is simple: a great solution deserves equally great support.