Elise Nguyen

1. After uploading the modified trade agreement template a line level filter is applied, on the Journal Lines and trade agreement, the third lines will show up when you choose only one line. If you choose all lines, it will be grayed out.
2. However, after downloading the file, all data will be included in the excel file, not missing, just filtering the line that you choose in the 1^st step. Kindly check the result when I clear all the filter:

So the expectation is system can allow to choose all the lines on Journal Lines and trade agreement page, then filter them all in Office ad-on, not only one line.

The reproduce step as below:

• Create new Trade agreement journals ad Pric with the default relation as Price (purch.) Click on Line
• .Create 2 lines of relation for 2 items 4410 and 1000, then Save
• Choose both lines.
• Navigate to Open in Microsoft Office, then choose Export to excel – Trade agreement journal lines
• After download the file, open it:
• Remove or add additional fields to the template using the Design button.
• Save the file on your computer, giving an identifiable name
• Go to Organisation administration > Setup > Office integration > Document template
• Select the New button, then select Browse and select the file saved in step
• Ensure the following check boxes have been selected for the uploaded file
• Go to Procurement and sourcing > Prices and discounts > Trade agreement journals
• Select the same trade agreement and then the Lines button.
• Open the trade agreement in excel using the updated template.

The idea involves an issue where the Production Batch order Gantt Chart displays the wrong date and time when drilled down.

After investigation, it was found that the display difference is due to the 'Job schedule display' parameter set to use the 'User's preferred time zone.'

Two current options were provided to address this:

1. Setting the parameter to UTC time for standardization
2. Or customizing the All Production Orders form to display dates and times in the user's time zone. 

However, this behavior creates an inconvenience for users in different time zones, as they have to set the parameter to use UTC time which may not align with their actual time zone.

It is necessary to add a modification and make it more user-friendly solution.

Hi team,

I received a reported concerns regarding insufficient visibility of functional changes introduced during the recent wave update (version 10.0.39, April 2024). Specifically, they encountered discrepancies in Purchase Order (PO) amounts and subsequent invoice calculations, which were caused by an undocumented or poorly documented change.

The customer was caught off guard because they could not find this change in the "What's new or changed" release documentation for Dynamics 365 Finance:

The customer expressed that they rely on release documentation to anticipate and plan corrective actions for upcoming changes. In this instance, they were unaware of the functional change until users began noticing discrepancies in their production environment.

Their feedback highlights two critical concerns:

• Lack of clear communication about this specific change in the release documentation: such as bug, how it changes, LCS published
• Difficulty in anticipating potential business impacts before production updates, which undermines their ability to test and adapt their processes proactively.

The customer has emphasized that clearer and more detailed documentation would significantly improve their ability to prepare for updates.

This issue highlights a gap in the current release communication process that affects customer experience and their ability to manage updates effectively. Addressing this will enhance trust in the platform and improve the overall update adoption process.

Thank you for your reviewing and we're looking for the new updates

Hi team,

Subject: Feature Request: Intercompany Indirect Process Across Three Legal Entities

1. Description of the Request:

A customer has requested an enhancement to the intercompany functionality in Dynamics 365 SCM to support a more flexible and indirect process flow across three legal entities (e.g., DRU (USA), DRN (ALK), and DRT (LPN)).

Specifically, they would like to introduce a setting that allows manual intervention at the DRN entity for processes like "Manually Post Packing" and "Manually Post Sales Invoice", instead of relying on automatic processes throughout the intercompany chain. This manual control at the DRN stage would allow the organization to align with operational needs and compliance requirements in certain scenarios.

2. Current Behavior:

In the current intercompany functionality:

• Intercompany purchase orders and sales orders are automatically created and processed between entities.
• Automatic actions, such as posting product receipts, packing slips, and sales invoices, are typically performed for seamless intercompany operations.
• There is limited support for breaking this automated flow for indirect manual steps within intermediate legal entities.

In the customer's scenario, manual intervention at DRN is crucial for operational flexibility and compliance requirements.

3. Expected Functionality:

The customer envisions the following enhancements:

• New Setting: Add an "Indirect Process" configuration option within intercompany settings to enable manual steps for specific legal entities within the chain.
• Example: DRN (ALK) handles manual processes for packing slips and sales invoices while maintaining automatic processes for the DRU (USA) and DRT (LPN) entities.
• This setting should be configurable on a per-entity or per-transaction basis.
• Customizable Workflow: Enable manual steps (e.g., posting) at intermediate entities (e.g., DRN) without disrupting the overall intercompany automation flow.
• Enhanced Visibility: Improve tracking and synchronization of manual and automatic processes across all entities in the chain, ensuring transparency and accuracy in the intercompany transactions.

4. Benefits of the Enhancement:

1. Operational Flexibility:

• Allows intermediate legal entities to control critical processes manually, aligning with their internal workflows.

1. Compliance Support:

• Ensures entities can meet local compliance requirements where manual intervention is necessary.

1. Scalability:

• Supports more complex intercompany scenarios involving multiple legal entities with varying process requirements.

1. Customer Satisfaction:

• Builds trust and confidence in the Dynamics 365 SCM intercompany functionality as a flexible and robust solution for real-world scenarios.

5. Business Case (Example Flow):

1. Entity DRU (USA):

• Creates a sales order for the end customer.
• Automatically creates a purchase order to DRN (ALK) as the vendor.

1. Entity DRN (ALK):

• Automatically creates a sales order to DRU (USA).
• Manually posts packing slip and Manually posts sales invoice for DRU, as required by local compliance or business rules.

1. Entity DRT (LPN):

• Processes production and updates on-hand stock.
• Automatically creates and completes subsequent intercompany processes, including shipping and invoicing.

This approach ensures seamless integration while allowing manual control at key points.

Let me know if additional details or clarifications are required. This feature would greatly enhance intercompany usability and address real-world customer needs.

I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon!

We received a ticket from customer with concerns about the lack of alignment between the Inventory Aging Report and the Trial Balance in Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management. They expect these reports to provide consistent and cohesive outputs, as both deal with inventory and costing data. The current distinction between the two reports has caused confusion and operational challenges. This report outlines their feedback and proposes enhancements to address their concerns.

Customer Concern:

The customer has expressed dissatisfaction with the differences in the data and purpose of the following reports:

1. Inventory Aging Report: Built to analyze on-hand inventory quantities over time.
2. Trial Balance: Focuses on financial costing and reconciliation.

Their expectation is for these reports to provide a unified or integrated view of inventory and costing to eliminate discrepancies and improve usability. The customer feels that having two separate reports with different outputs creates unnecessary complexity and confusion for users.

Current Challenges:

1. Data Discrepancy: Users are unable to reconcile the outcomes of the two reports, as they are built on different underlying data structures (inventory on-hand vs. costing transactions).
2. User Confusion: Users expect consistency between inventory-related reports but are not aware of the distinct purposes and methodologies behind each report.
3. Operational Impact: The misalignment has caused delays and errors in the customer's reporting processes, leading to dissatisfaction with the current reporting functionality.

Proposed Enhancement:

To address the customer’s concerns and improve the user experience, we propose the following enhancements:

1. Optimization of Existing Reports:

• Add clear descriptions or tooltips within the Inventory Aging Report and Trial Balance to explain their purpose, data sources, and intended outcomes.
• Include warnings or guidelines when users attempt to compare these reports, highlighting that they are not designed to align directly.

1. Development of a Unified Report (New Functionality):

• Create a new report or dashboard that integrates the key features of both the Inventory Aging Report and the Trial Balance.
• This report could provide:
• A combined view of inventory on-hand quantities and their associated costs.
• Reconciliation capabilities to help users understand how inventory quantities and costing align.
• Customizable filters to adapt the report to specific business needs.

1. Improved Documentation:

• Update the documentation and user guides for these reports to explicitly address their differences and provide examples of how they can be used together.

Customer Impact:

Implementing these enhancements would:

• Reduce user confusion and improve reporting clarity.
• Streamline the decision-making process by offering a consolidated view of inventory and costing.
• Enhance customer satisfaction by addressing a long-standing pain point in the system.

Business Justification:

This enhancement aligns with Dynamics 365's goal of improving usability and customer satisfaction. By addressing this feedback, we can ensure that customers feel heard and supported while also increasing the value of the product.

Next Steps:

1. Evaluate the feasibility of integrating the proposed enhancements into upcoming releases.
2. Collaborate with the Product Team to determine the scope and priority of this feature.
3. Communicate the roadmap for these changes to the customer to manage expectations.

Supporting Documentation:

Attached are the customer’s original inquiry and examples of the discrepancies they encountered between the Inventory Aging

Report and Trial Balance.

Thank you for considering this request. Please let me know if further clarification or additional details are required.

Hi team.

Recently, we recently receive the ticket about concern "Prevent Skipping Numbers in Non-Continuous Number Sequences". This is a request to optimize the behavior of number sequences in Dynamics 365 for Finance and Operations. The current design for non-continuous number sequences may skip numbers when certain actions (e.g., cancellation) occur. This behavior is by design as stated in the official documentation, but it does not align with some customers’ operational expectations.

A customer has raised a concern that when using non-continuous number sequences for purchase orders, cancelling a purchase order skips the number (e.g., sequence starts at 1000, cancels the PO, and continues at 1001, skipping 1000). The customer requires that even with a non-continuous sequence, the system should not skip numbers, ensuring better traceability and compliance with their business processes.

Customer Scenario (with repro steps):

1. Configure a non-continuous number sequence starting at 1000 for Purchase Orders.
2. Create a new purchase order.
3. Cancel the purchase order.
4. Create another purchase order.

• Current result: The new purchase order is created with the next number in the sequence (1001), skipping the cancelled number.
• Expected result: The new purchase order reuses the skipped number (1000).

Expected behavior:

When using non-continuous number sequences, even if a transaction is cancelled, the same number (e.g., 1000) should be available for reuse in the next transaction, ensuring no skipped numbers.

Business Impact:

• Missing numbers in sequences affects traceability and reporting, especially in industries that require strict compliance with regulatory standards.
• Customers who prefer non-continuous sequences for performance reasons face challenges due to skipped numbers when transactions are cancelled.

We would like to suggest the enhancement for function as:

Update the functionality of non-continuous number sequences to include an option or feature that allows the reuse of numbers from cancelled transactions, ensuring no skipped numbers without switching to continuous number sequences. This should be configurable to maintain flexibility for customers who rely on the current design.

This enhancement would improve customer satisfaction by addressing a common business need for sequential numbering while retaining the benefits of non-continuous sequences. It also aligns the product with diverse operational and regulatory requirements across industries.

Kindly review and contact me if any information required. Thank you so much!

Dear Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to escalate and seek optimization regarding a functionality that has caused challenges for our clients and their operations. Below is a summary of the situation and our request for enhancement:

Issue Summary

The current design of the system unable to cancel the Sale order when this SO has the open lines with WSH. While this behavior is in line with the system's current design, it creates operational inefficiencies and confusion for end users.

Current Workaround

The suggested workaround from the PG team—to enable warehouse processing after canceling open lines—has been communicated to the client. However, this workaround is neither intuitive nor ideal for their workflow, as it causes disruptions and adds unnecessary steps to the process.

Impact on Clients

• Increased complexity in managing warehouse processing operations.
• Delayed task execution and user frustration due to the lack of clear system feedback or guidance.
• Higher dependency on support teams to explain and resolve the issue, which affects overall user experience and client satisfaction.

Request for Optimization

We respectfully request the following optimizations:

1. System Fix:

• Consider revising the system design to eliminate the dependency on canceling open lines before enabling warehouse processing.
• Ensure the system workflow aligns with client expectations and operational efficiency.

1. Warning Message Implementation:

• If a fix is not feasible in the short term, introduce a clear warning message to inform users about the required steps when they attempt to enable warehouse processing without canceling open lines.
• This will reduce confusion and guide users effectively.

Our customer has raised a concern about the current functionality related to Purchase Orders (PO) in D365 Supply Chain Management (SCM). They have encountered challenges in the following areas:

1. Tracking PO Changes:

• The customer observed that after a PO is confirmed, changes were made to the PO by someone, and there is no straightforward way to identify:
• Who made the changes.
• When the changes were made.
• What specific changes were made.
• The lack of a detailed audit trail for PO modifications has caused difficulties in maintaining accountability and transparency.

1. Access Level Restriction for PO Changes:

• The customer needs the ability to restrict access to modify POs to specific roles, such as buyers and approvers. Currently, there is no built-in functionality to easily configure access levels for PO changes.

1. PO Change Management Limitation:

• The customer has not enabled the PO Change Management feature because it only triggers an approval workflow after the PO is changed. However, it does not restrict unauthorized changes or provide the detailed tracking functionality they require.

Customer Expectations: To address the above challenges, the customer suggests the following enhancements:

1. PO Change Tracking:

• Enable a detailed audit trail for POs that logs:
• The user who made the changes.
• The timestamp of the changes.
• A summary of the changes made (e.g., changes to quantities, prices, delivery dates, etc.).

1. Access Level Configuration for POs:

• Provide the capability to restrict PO modification permissions to specific roles, such as buyers and approvers, while allowing others to only view POs.

1. Enhanced PO Change Management:

• Expand the functionality of the PO Change Management feature to include:
• Restricting unauthorized changes.
• Combining change approval workflows with detailed change tracking.

Business Impact: The lack of these functionalities has led to:

• Reduced accountability for PO modifications.
• Operational inefficiencies in identifying and rectifying unauthorized changes.
• Increased risk of errors in the procurement process due to unrestricted access.

Requested Solution: We request the Product Group to consider implementing the following:

• A built-in PO change log feature to track detailed modification history.
• Role-based access control for POs to limit modification permissions.
• Enhanced PO Change Management to include both restriction of unauthorized changes and detailed tracking of approved changes.

Priority Level: Medium-High (Based on the operational impact for customers relying on PO workflows for procurement management.)

These enhancements would significantly improve transparency, control, and efficiency in their procurement processes.

Please review and assist this request. Thank you so much

Hi team, thanks for your hard work as always.

Following a customer inquiry, we have identified a product limitation related to cost allocation for co-products. Currently, while total cost allocations can be defined, the system does not support dynamic adjustments where specific inputs are allocated only to certain co-products based on varying input-output ratios.

Customer Expectation:

The customer requires the ability to:

• Allocate costs dynamically based on specific inputs per co-product.
• Handle scenarios where the ratio between co-products fluctuates (e.g., Product X sometimes has 10 times Product Y, and sometimes only 2 times).
• Ensure that input materials are costed only against the co-products they are actually used for.

Current Limitation:

• The standard cost allocation setup applies costs uniformly across co-products, without differentiating specific input materials used for each output.
• No existing configuration allows for variable allocation based on changing production ratios.

Proposed Consideration:

Would it be feasible to enhance cost allocation functionality in future releases to support:

1. Conditional input-based costing, where input materials are linked only to relevant co-products.
2. Dynamic allocation rules, where the system can adjust costing automatically based on real-time production ratios.

Please advise on the feasibility of such an enhancement, or if there are any planned roadmap features that might address this requirement.

Thank you for your support.

1. Business Scenario

Process Overview:

The current intercompany process involves transactions between two legal entities: MHNZ (New Zealand) and MHDE (Germany). The process follows a direct delivery model where MHNZ creates a Sales Order, and MHDE creates a corresponding Purchase Order.

Issue Statement:

Once the Sales Order invoice is posted in MHNZ, users manually extract the invoices and send them to MHDE for manual Purchase Order invoicing.

This manual process is time-consuming, especially when handling high transaction volumes.

The risk of missing invoice postings increases during month-end financial close, leading to operational inefficiencies and potential financial reconciliation issues.

Expected Outcome:

The system should automatically post the Purchase Order invoice in MHDE as soon as the Sales Order invoice is posted in MHNZ.

This automation would streamline intercompany processing, reduce manual effort, and improve financial accuracy.

2. Current System Limitation

After thorough investigation, we identified that D365 FnO does not currently support automatic status updates for intercompany Purchase Orders to "Invoiced" when the corresponding Sales Order is invoiced.

Findings:

No direct system functionality exists to automate the intercompany invoicing process between two legal entities.

Batch jobs and FIN team consultation confirmed that available automation options are limited and do not fully support periodic intercompany tasks.

Manual intervention remains necessary, causing delays and errors in financial reporting.

3. Proposed Enhancement

Feature Request:

Enable an automated intercompany invoice posting mechanism in D365 FnO, where:

Once a Sales Order invoice is posted in one entity, the system automatically triggers the corresponding Purchase Order invoice posting in the other entity.

The system should allow configuration for legal entities to enable/disable this automation based on business needs.

A monitoring dashboard or log should track automatic postings for transparency and troubleshooting.

4. Priority & Business Impact

Given the high transaction volume and criticality of intercompany financial accuracy, this enhancement is highly beneficial for businesses operating in multiple legal entities.

We kindly request the PG team to consider this enhancement request for future updates to D365 FnO. If feasible, we would appreciate any guidance on potential roadmap inclusion or alternative solutions within the product framework.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please let us know if additional information or use case details are required.

Best Regards,