The Hidden Tax on Every D365 Implementation: Why We Keep Building the Same Tests Over and Over

If you have spent any time implementing Microsoft Dynamics 365, you have probably noticed something that nobody talks about openly: we build the same tests on every single project.

Order-to-Cash. Procure-to-Pay. Record-to-Report. Month-end close. Inventory adjustments.

These processes exist in virtually every D365 Finance and Operations deployment. The screens look similar. The workflows follow the same logic. The validation points are nearly identical.

And yet, on every new implementation, we start from scratch.

The Maths Nobody Wants to Discuss

Let us walk through what this actually looks like in practice.

A typical D365 F&O implementation requires somewhere between 800 and 1,200 test scenarios to achieve reasonable coverage of core business processes. Building test automation for these scenarios takes a skilled team roughly 1,000 hours when starting from zero.

Now consider a mid-sized systems integrator running 15 to 20 D365 projects per year. That is 15,000 to 20,000 hours annually spent building test automation for processes that are fundamentally the same across clients.

For the customer, this translates directly into project cost and timeline. Testing often does not begin in earnest until month four or five of an implementation, because the automation needs to be built first. By the time regression testing is ready to run at scale, you are already approaching go-live and discovering issues late in the cycle.

This is not a technology problem. It is an assumption problem. We have accepted that test automation must be built from scratch on every project, and we have never questioned whether that assumption still makes sense.

Why We Keep Doing This

There are a few reasons this pattern persists, and they are worth examining honestly.

The customisation argument. The most common justification is that every D365 environment is different. Customers have unique configurations, custom fields, modified workflows, and ISV extensions. Therefore, the logic goes, tests must be custom-built to match.

This is partially true. But here is what gets overlooked: the core business processes in D365 are 70 to 80 percent standard. The screens, the navigation, the fundamental transaction flows are consistent across deployments. Customisations typically affect 20 to 30 percent of the testing surface area.

We are rebuilding 100 percent of our tests to accommodate 20 to 30 percent variation. That ratio should bother us more than it does.

The tooling limitation. Traditional test automation tools, particularly script-based frameworks like Selenium, produce brittle tests that break whenever the application changes. D365 receives continuous updates from Microsoft, which means tests built with rigid locator strategies require constant maintenance.

When your tests break every time Microsoft pushes an update, building a reusable library feels pointless. Why invest in reusability when everything needs to be rebuilt after each wave release anyway?

This is a real constraint, but it is a constraint imposed by the tooling, not by the problem itself.

The billable hours model. This one is uncomfortable to acknowledge, but it matters. For implementation partners, test automation represents billable work. There is no immediate commercial incentive to reduce the hours spent on testing when those hours generate revenue.

We are not suggesting anyone is acting in bad faith. But incentive structures shape behaviour, and the current structure does not reward efficiency in test automation.

What Changes When You Stop Rebuilding

Imagine a different approach. Instead of starting from zero, you begin with a library of pre-built test components covering standard D365 processes. Order-to-Cash is already automated. Procure-to-Pay is already automated. Month-end close procedures, inventory management workflows, GL operations: all ready to deploy.

Your work shifts from building to configuring. You adapt the pre-built components to match your client's specific setup. You add automation for the custom workflows and extensions that are unique to this implementation. You focus your effort on the 20 to 30 percent that actually requires custom work.

The timeline impact is significant. Testing can begin on day one of the project rather than month four. Regression coverage is available immediately, which means you catch integration issues earlier in the cycle when they are cheaper to fix.

For implementation partners, this changes the competitive equation. The firm that delivers D365 in four months instead of six wins more deals. The firm that includes comprehensive test automation as standard rather than optional commands premium positioning. The hours saved on test development can be redirected to higher-value advisory work.

For customers, the value is straightforward: faster time to value, lower project risk, and test assets that can be reused as you roll out D365 across additional business units or geographies.

The Self-Healing Factor

There is a reason this approach has not been practical until recently. Traditional automation breaks when applications change, and D365 changes constantly. Microsoft's continuous update model means your D365 environment receives multiple updates per year, each potentially shifting UI elements, modifying workflows, or introducing new screens.

If your test automation is built on rigid element locators, every update becomes a maintenance event. The reusable library you invested in becomes a maintenance burden instead of an asset.

This is where AI-native test automation changes the equation. Modern platforms use machine learning to understand what a test is trying to accomplish, not just which buttons to click. When D365 updates and a button moves or a field is renamed, the test adapts automatically. The system recognises the intent of the test step and finds the new path to accomplish it.

Self-healing is not a nice-to-have feature. It is the prerequisite that makes reusable test libraries viable in a continuously updating environment like D365.

A Different Way to Think About Testing Investment

The traditional view treats test automation as a project cost: something you build, use for go-live, and then maintain grudgingly during the support phase.

A composable approach treats test automation as an asset: something you build once, deploy across multiple projects, and improve over time. Each implementation makes the library better. Each edge case you encounter and automate benefits future projects.

For implementation partners, this represents a genuine competitive advantage. You are not just selling services; you are leveraging accumulated intellectual property that makes every subsequent project faster and more reliable.

For D365 customers, particularly those planning multi-site or multi-entity rollouts, the compounding benefit is substantial. The test automation you build for your first D365 instance becomes the foundation for your second, third, and tenth. You stop paying to reinvent the same tests at every location.

The Question Worth Asking

Next time you scope a D365 implementation, ask a simple question: how much of our test automation effort is truly unique to this project, and how much is rebuilding what we have built before?

If the answer is uncomfortable, you are not alone. The entire industry has accepted redundant work as normal for so long that we stopped noticing the cost.

But it does not have to be this way. The tooling has evolved. The approach has matured. The firms that recognise this shift early will operate with a structural advantage that compounds over time.

The firms that keep rebuilding the same tests on every project will keep wondering why their competitors seem to move faster.

Virtuoso QA provides composable test automation for Microsoft Dynamics 365, with a library of 1,000+ pre-built test components covering Finance and Operations, Sales, Customer Service, Supply Chain Management, and Project Operations. To see how composable testing could accelerate your next D365 implementation, request a demo.