Engagement
Engineering Risk Audit
Commit to the partner, the platform, or the remediation plan with the production risks and cost drivers visible before the contract locks them in. In two weeks, senior engineers read your actual code and architecture and hand you a risk-ranked readout you can put in front of any vendor. We never bid the build we review, so there is no follow-on work behind the recommendation.
Baseline scope: 1 D365 estate, 1 architectural decision, 1–2 integration topics. Access prerequisites listed below; scope factors agreed at signing.
Who it is for
- Solution architects about to sign a major D365 implementation contract or change-order.
- CIOs and IT directors who want an independent gut-check on a partner-recommended architecture.
- CIOs and CTOs evaluating a post-go-live remediation proposal — dual-write license upgrade, iPaaS replatform, embedded integration layer, or custom X++ build to "fix the live system."
- Microsoft partners who occasionally need a deeper engineering review on a complex deal (white-label or co-delivered).
- Procurement and vendor-management teams making a tool-selection decision (iPaaS vs custom vs embedded layer).
Not for pricing validation, not for full hands-on stabilization work (use Production Stabilization Sprint — Audit is the readout, Sprint is the fix), and not for high-level "trends in Dynamics" briefings.
Typical triggers
When teams reach out
- "We are about to commit to an iPaaS for our D365 estate — is that the right call?"
- "Our partner is recommending a custom X++ build — second opinion?"
- "Our partner wants €120k/year to upgrade our dual-write license tier as a fix — is that the right solution?"
- "We are 6 months from go-live and the architecture diagram has us nervous — can someone independent review it?"
- "Our internal team disagrees on integration approach. We need an outside arbiter."
What you get
Deliverable
An 8–15 page written readout with risk-ranked findings (BLOCKING / SHOULD / NOTE) across both architecture and X++ code — extension patterns, integration design, customization footprint — plus specific recommendations and explicit scope limits. Vendor-neutral — we name patterns, not products.
How it works
Timeline
-
1
Kickoff call 60 min
Confirm scope, share-folder access, set the working-session date, surface any data still needed.
-
2
Diagnostic phase 5–7 business days
We read everything sent, walk through the architecture, check it against Microsoft-supported patterns and real-world failure modes, write up findings.
-
3
Working session 90 min
Live walkthrough of findings with you and your architect. Q&A. Decisions captured.
-
4
Readout document 3 business days after the session
Written record of findings, recommendations, decisions reached, follow-up items.
Pricing
Fixed-fee — quoted on the scoping call
- Fixed fee for the baseline scope — 1 D365 estate, 1–2 integration topics, 1 architectural decision. The figure is set on the scoping call.
- Scope factors that change the quote — additional integration topics, deeper code review, multi-LE / multi-region — are agreed up front, never added silently.
- Payment: 50% on kickoff, 50% on readout delivery.
When we re-quote: We re-quote when the input pack reveals more than 3 integration topics, >3 extensions to review, or more than 1 LE / region.
Scope clarity
What this engagement is NOT
- Not a long-term advisory retainer (use Production Stabilization Sprint if you need engagement that touches your code or configuration directly).
- Not a Microsoft licensing review.
- Not a remediation engagement — the readout points at risks; fixing them is a separate scope.
- Not a "rate the implementation partner" exercise. We review architecture, not vendor performance.
Ready to start?
Bring the relevant materials — architecture diagrams, recent logs, the decision under review — and we will scope from there.