Architect solutions
The Architect solutions domain carries the largest weight on MB-700, roughly 35–40%. It tests whether you can convert business requirements into a defensible solution blueprint for Dynamics 365 Finance and Operations apps: process fit, data model, integration, security, extensibility, and licensing. The exam favours decisions you can justify, not feature recall.
Map processes before features
Model the customer's processes in Business process modeler (BPM) inside Lifecycle Services and compare them against the standard process library. Classify every requirement as standard, configuration, extension, or genuine gap. Each classification becomes a design decision in the solution blueprint, and each requirement must trace forward to a test case.
Integration and data
Choose the pattern by latency and volume. Data entities plus the Data Management Framework suit bulk and batch movement; dual-write suits near-real-time writes into Customer Engagement apps; virtual entities suit read-only lookups. High-volume outbound extraction should be asynchronous, with staging and retry, not chatty OData calls.
Extensibility and security
Extend, never overlay: chain of command, event handlers, plug-ins, table and form extensions. Overlayering breaks One Version servicing. Security flows role, duty, privilege, permission, with record-level security for row scoping and entity permissions for integrated apps.
Licensing
Every user needs a base or attach license; shared-device scenarios use device licenses. Validate licensing before the blueprint is signed off, because it sometimes removes an option entirely.
Worked example
Warehouse staff confirm work on handheld scanners, and the customer wants two million transaction lines exported nightly to a data warehouse. Reasoning: shared handhelds map to device licenses; nightly volume maps to a DMF export to Azure Data Lake or BYOD rather than dual-write, because the warehouse is not a model-driven app and does not need per-record latency.
Traps
Customizing a standard process because it is "close enough"; proposing overlayering; using real-time integration for bulk data; leaving licensing validation until after blueprint review; treating fit-gap as a one-off workshop instead of a traced, maintained log.