Tag: customer engagement

Dynamics 365 Contact Centre – worth it or not?

As quite a few people are aware, my background is decently embedded in customer service capabilities. In fact when I launched this blog, I did a massive number of articles around the new Omnichannel capabilities that Microsoft had just released for Dynamics 365 Customer Service!

Since then, Microsoft have been releasing new & updated functionality over the last number of years, and it’s been really great to see the journey & roadmap that’s been implemented. It’s now absolutely possible to have a full customer service experience, across many different channels (first party provided by Microsoft, as well as through 3rd party solutions).

Last year, Microsoft brought out a new offering called ‘Dynamics 365 Contact Center’. This is an interesting angle on the products being offered by Microsoft. I’ve recently had the opportunity to dig deeper into the offering, and want to share my thoughts below as to whether it’s worth it or not.

Before I start, I’m going to be quite clear – having spent several weeks deep on this, including talking to various senior technical people at Microsoft, my general conclusion is that this is more of an outlier/edge case product, rather than being something that most organisations will look to adopt.

Personally I also think that this is more of a political consideration to be able to get on the analyst charts/reports for Contact Centre (given that organisations need to have their technology be able to connect into multiple platforms).

With that said, let’s take a look into WHY I say that (though I’m happy for my mind to be changed!).

Offering

The way that Microsoft pitches the product is as follows:

Deliver intelligence, automation, and efficiency across channels through a Copilot-first contact center that works with existing CRMs.

What does this actually mean? Well, it’s Microsoft offering communication capabilities across multiple channels, which is essentially the Omnichannel capabilities that Dynamics 365 Customer Service has already. What it doesn’t have is the actual underlying Customer Service functionality that service functions need.

For the eagle eyed amongst you, you’ll have noted the part of ‘existing CRM’s’. What this means is that Microsoft has enabled the technology to be be able to connect into third party CRM systems (eg SalesForce, Service Now, ZenDesk, etc). More on how this is being done further below.

The thinking behind this that this is now an offering for organisations to be able to use Microsoft as the Contact Centre solution whilst continuing to work with their existing systems. This is because larger scale customers are often not able to look at replacing/migrating for both CRM & CCaaS at the same time. Being able to have this as an offering therefore can enable organisations to make use of their Microsoft investment, and possibly using it as a ‘stepping stone’ to migrating to a full Microsoft CRM solution (ie Dynamics 365).

Other providers such as Genesys, NICE, Five9 & Amazon all have similar sorts of companion Contact Centre solutions as well, so Microsoft is obviously looking at competing with these now too.

Integrations

So integrating with other systems are at the absolute core of the product. This is because, as I’ve said above, this is not a complete customer service/CRM solution.

There are two types of integrations that are currently being facilitated by the product:

  • SalesForce. There is a native integration to SalesForce, using the Microsoft SalesForce connector. This is actually connecting directly from Contact Centre to SalesForce through the SalesForce API, without any other components needed
  • All other CRM systems. Connecting into other CRM systems, such as Zendesk & ServiceNow etc, use Power Automate. More specifically, a single Power Automate flow, which needs to be set up, connected & configured. It does allow the ability to use either one of the provided connectors or API calls through HTTP action, but there’s some manual work required. The drawbacks of course of using Power Automate is that it’s not actually a (proper) integration tool, and could possibly run into challenges when handling data at scale – throttling or timing out.

Note: Microsoft teams may also say that it’s possible to deploy Contact Centre on top of Dynamics 365. Though this is technically feasible, it does require its own environment to be deployed, and then using Power Automate (or another data integration/sync technology) to move data backwards & forwards, and is not the way that the product is actually being positioned.

Environment (& storage considerations)

When deploying Contact Centre, it requires its own environment to be set up in. It is not possible to deploy Contact Centre on top of an existing Dynamics 365 (Customer Service) environment.

It’s important to consider the amount of data that’s needing to be synced in to this environment, the ongoing data storage within it, as well as the storage that usage of Copilot will take up. One of the concerns that I’ve seen, especially when at scale in organisations with hundreds or thousands of users, as the amount of storage that the Copilot logs actually takes up (which customers are charged for). These can of course be cleared down, but then the analytics from these won’t be useful for longer periods of time.

Embedded Experience

It is possible to embed the conversation widget from Contact Centre directly into other CRM (or other) systems. This allows users access to this without needing to switch systems. It’s a very nice item to have – it’s something I wish that were possible with Dynamics 365 Customer Service, but unfortunately that’s not possible (at least not at this point in time)!

Licensing

From a practical perspective, I don’t believe that the numbers actually show a positive approach towards adopting Contact Centre on top of other applications.

If we take SalesForce as an example, there are possibly 3 licenses that larger organisations would have (all prices are current list price in USD):

  • Pro Suite – $100 per user per month
  • Enterprise – $165 per user per month
  • Unlimited – $330 per user per month

Adding on Dynamics 365 Contact Centre would then add an additional $110 per user per month. That means a minimum of $210 per user per month, though the likelihood is somewhat higher (as most large organisations would be on SalesForce Service Cloud Enterprise) at around $275 per user per month. Those prices also don’t include additional Dataverse storage that may be needed for large amounts of data being handled.

Compare that with the new Dynamics 365 Customer Service Premium offering (wrapping up Customer Service Enterprise, Voice & Digital Channels into a single SKU) at $195 per user per month. In my mind, going native Dynamics 365 all the way is a no brainer (especially as Copilot is native in the product – with SalesForce, you need to pay more for AI!).

Existing Dynamics 365 (Customer Service) deployment

To be clear – if organisations already have Dynamics 365 (Customer Service) deployed & in use, then the specific Dynamics 365 Contact Centre solution is NOT the solution for them. Customer Service is designed to be the complete end to end solution for CRM/Case Management/Ticketing/Omnichannel etc, and Customer Service Premium (as mentioned in the licensing section above) is bringing together Customer Service together with Contact Centre capabilities within a single environment.

Also as pointed out above under Environments, it’s not possible to deploy Contact Centre into an existing Dynamics 365 deployment – you need to set up another environment, and then syncronise the data backwards & forwards, leading to more storage costs, API calls, technical setup/infrastructure, etc.

Summary

In summary, I think it’s an interesting (lightweight) product, and will keep an eye on it to see how it possibly evolves. Time will tell as to whether it takes off at scale or not.

I’d also like to thank Peter Ruiter for his time & expertise on some of the finer nuances on the product.

If you’re considering deploying Dynamics 365 Contact Centre, or have any questions around it, please do drop a comment below – I’d love to hear!

Changes in the FTRSA Program

Firstly for those who are not aware, the acronym ‘FTRSA’ stands for ‘Fast Track Recognised Solution Architect’. This is an award that Microsoft bestows on people working for Microsoft Partners who have demonstrated clear technical expertise & understanding of the Microsoft Business Applications Platform at (enterprise) scale.

To quote from the Microsoft documentation for the program:

The FTRSA designation is awarded by Microsoft’s Business Industry & Copilot (BIC) engineering team to enterprise solution architects who exhibit outstanding expertise in architecture and deliver high-quality solutions. Recipients are typically nominated based on their exceptional skills, extensive experience with Microsoft products, relevant certifications, and leadership in projects.

The award covers two main areas – Power Platform & Dynamics 365, with different capabilities under each area.

The program has been around for 6 years now (since 2019), with people needing to submit for annual (re)award & recognition. On average, approx. 120 people are recognised with this award globally. It is definitely something that Microsoft Partners can place a large emphasis on if they have people with this!

Generally over the last few years, the categories for being awarded have included:

  • Power Apps
  • Power Automate
  • Power BI
  • Dynamics 365 (CE)
  • Dynamics 365 (ERP)

Changes over the last few years have included the Power BI category being retired. This is to be expected, I guess, given that Microsoft programs tend to flex/pivot over time.

The process for application is simple. By this, I mean that nominees need to fill in a form (located at https://aka.ms/FTRSANomination). In this form, they then need to provide various pieces of information, such as their personal information, the partner that they work for (including the Microsoft Partner ID), as well as submitting proofs to show that they currently fulfil the necessary requirements for the program. These requirements can vary based on the technology, and over the last few years I’ve seen a few different versions (based on the year).

The form is usually open for around 3 months or so, opening at some point in October, and closing at some point in January.

Once submitted, the information is then sent to the relevant Microsoft team who oversee & run the program for review. There are several stages to the review that is carried out:

  1. The team carry out an initial review of the information provided, ensuring that it meets the program requirements. Applicants who have not provided the information to meet the program requirements/criteria, or who do not pass the initial review threshold as evaluated by the team (this is why applicants are recommended to ensure that they’re focusing on quality of information being submitted), are not progressed and are notified.
  2. Applicants who pass the first stage are then invited to an interview. This is carried out with one of the wider team members, based on region & availability. The interview usually lasts around one hour, and is an evaluation of the technical skills & expertise of the applicant. During this interview, candidates are required to present on a project that they have implemented, and to demonstrate their in-depth knowledge & role that they played on the project.
  3. Finally, the team reviews the interviews, and decides as to which applicants have successfully shown their skills & expertise. Applications who have not met the level required are notified, along with feedback and areas that they could look to work on for a future nomination.
  4. Successful applicants are notified as well directly, though the news is not publicised until May or so, when the public announcement takes place with the relevant FTRSA websites being updated with their information.

Business Contributions

Having taken a look at the nomination form for this year, there are some new changes coming in that will be quite important (in my opinion) to pay attention to. These are being referred to as ‘Business Contributions’. Specifically, applicants will not only need to demonstrate technical/project expertise, but will also need to demonstrate one or more business contributions.

Depending on the technical area being selected for the application (Power Apps or Dynamics 365), these are the areas that contributions can be submitted for:

Power Apps

  • Published Microsoft Customer Stories or Microsoft Partner Stories, or evidence of nomination to be published
  • Contribution of product feedback to engineering teams, advisory boards, focus groups, communication forms or private preview programs
  • Published technical samples (e.g. code snippets, data migration templates, integration samples, etc) in the PowerCAT GitHub channel
  • Proof of escalation reduction in customer implementations
  • Reference architecture article/s used with a customer that leverages the Power Platform Well Architected framework

Dynamics 365

  • Onboarded customer implement project(s) in the Dynamics 365 implementation portal, leveraging Dynamics 365 guidance hub frameworks
  • Published Microsoft Customer Stories or Microsoft Partner Stories, or evidence of nomination to be published
  • Contribution of product feedback to engineering teams, advisory boards, focus groups, communication forms or private preview programs
  • Published technical samples (e.g. code snippets, data migration templates, integration samples, etc) in the Dynamics 365 guidance hub
  • Published contributions to the Business Process Guide Catalogue
  • Proof of escalation reduction in customer implementations (either partner led or FastTrack led implementation)
  • Submit additional reference architecture articles for review and potential publication

This is a significant change for the program – for the last 6 years, it’s been purely expertise recognised from client engagements. Now (in the 7th year, and I’d think very likely going forward), people considering nominating for FTRSA will need to prove that they’re giving back to Microsoft in some way, other than just running client engagements.

Overall, I think this is an interesting concept, and generally a good one. Let’s face it – being able to talk about technology (at scale) is something quite a few people can do, but it doesn’t meant that they’re necessarily good at it. I know of several over-architected projects that I was brought in on, where just because lots of technology components were used, didn’t mean it was doing well. Part of the skillset as an experienced/knowledgeable architect is also when less is more!

Additionally, being technically competent is of course important, but personally I believe that being able to be clear & communicative is also a very important role for a solution architect. Essentially having that functional view, as well as being able to engage appropriately with customers (as the owner of the project) is vital as well. One of the

I also think that Microsoft is wanting to see that the program in which they’re investing time, effort & resources (yes, FTRSA’s get a wonderful SWAG box – THANK YOU TEAM!) are providing ROI back into Microsoft in terms of feedback, input & other information. This way products can (hopefully!) get better, visions can be assisted with customer information, and others can be helped as well.

Some people may say that this is becoming more like the Microsoft MVP program. Given how much MVP’s are required to do, in terms of community (& Microsoft) engagement, I can understand the thoughts, but really don’t think that it’s anything anywhere near to that. My only note on this would be that I hope that contributions remain business/technical focused, which to me seems in line with the stated goals of the program, rather then also include (other) community contributions.

Of course, there are those people who may choose not to do such things, and just focus on the project/s that they’re working on. This is a valid scenario, and there is of course absolutely NOTHING wrong with this. Not all of us may wish to engage with Microsoft engineering teams, or provide information publicly. And that’s all fine. However I would politely point out that nothing remains static, and if you’re wanting to receive (or continue to receive) the FTRSA award, you may need to do some thinking around how you’re approaching it, with the change that’s come this year.

I’d also encourage people who are considering applying for the FTRSA award recognition to reach out to an existing FTRSA, who could possibly help mentor, review & guide you. They’ve already been through the process and are recognised as such, and therefore have a pretty good idea of what ‘hits the bar’ and what may not.

So if you’re thinking of going for it – I wish you the best of luck!