Dynamics 365 TeamMate Audit Software
Dynamics 365 TeamMate audit software refers to the integration between Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance & Operations and TeamMate+ (Wolters Kluwer's audit management platform), used by internal audit functions that run their engagement planning, workpapers, and findings tracking in TeamMate while Dynamics 365 remains the system of record for financial transactions and control evidence. TeamMate+ has no native connector that reads Dynamics 365 security roles or SoD violations directly; the integration in practice is an evidence pipeline internal audit builds — extracting role assignments, workflow history, and change logs from Dynamics 365 on a defined schedule and importing them into TeamMate+ as workpaper attachments or linked evidence, rather than a live, queryable link between the two systems. Understanding that distinction shapes how the integration should be scoped, because teams that expect TeamMate+ to query Dynamics 365 in real time are solving the wrong problem.
What the Dynamics 365-to-TeamMate+ integration actually is
TeamMate+ is an audit management platform: it organizes the audit universe, risk assessments, engagement workpapers, testing procedures, and findings-to-remediation tracking. It is not built with a native, out-of-box connector to Dynamics 365 F&O's data model, and Microsoft does not publish one in the other direction either. The practical integration pattern most Dynamics 365 audit programmes use is a scheduled extraction — a saved query or data management framework job that pulls the SoD violation report, workflow history log, or change-tracking entries out of F&O in a structured format (CSV, Excel, or via the OData endpoint) — followed by an import or manual attachment step that links that evidence to the corresponding TeamMate+ testing procedure.
This means the integration's reliability depends entirely on the extraction step being consistent, not on any capability TeamMate+ itself provides. If the F&O-side extraction changes — a different administrator runs it, a different set of roles gets included, the query definition drifts — the TeamMate+ workpapers will show evidence that looks complete but was actually produced inconsistently across periods, which is exactly the kind of finding external auditors probe for when they ask how testing evidence was generated.
Structuring TeamMate+ workpapers around Dynamics 365 evidence sources
A workable structure ties each TeamMate+ testing procedure to one specific Dynamics 365 evidence source and one specific extraction method, documented in the procedure's methodology field rather than left implicit. For SoD testing, the procedure references the SoD violation report and the exact rule set version it was run against; for approval-control testing, it references the workflow history log filtered to the sampled transaction population; for change-management testing, it references both F&O database change tracking and, where Power Platform is in scope, the Microsoft Purview audit log export. Each of these becomes a distinct, repeatable link in TeamMate+ rather than a single generic 'ERP evidence' attachment.
Findings raised in TeamMate+ against Dynamics 365 controls should reference the specific role, duty, workflow, or table involved, not a general description of the control, because Dynamics 365 environments change fast enough that a vaguely described finding becomes hard to re-test months later. A finding written as 'segregation-of-duties conflict between vendor maintenance and payment processing in the Accounts Payable Clerk role, per SoD rule set version dated [testing period]' remains testable even if that role gets renamed or restructured before remediation closes; a finding written as 'AP has an SoD issue' does not.
Where the integration commonly breaks down
The most frequent failure is treating the first extraction as a one-time setup task rather than an ongoing process. Internal audit teams build a solid extraction query for the first TeamMate+ testing cycle, get through the audit successfully, and then let the query owner move roles or leave the organization without documenting the extraction logic anywhere TeamMate+ or the audit team can reference. The following cycle's evidence ends up produced by a different method, and the year-over-year comparability external auditors expect from a mature control environment quietly erodes.
A second common gap is scope: because TeamMate+ workpapers are typically organized around financial statement assertions and business processes, teams sometimes build the Dynamics 365 extraction only for F&O application-layer evidence and never extend it to Power Platform activity captured in Purview. Since Power Apps and Power Automate flows connected to Dataverse can affect financially relevant data outside the F&O client's own controls, a TeamMate+ audit programme that never imports Purview evidence has a blind spot in exactly the area — Power Platform governance — that Dynamics 365 SOX assessments increasingly flag as a control gap.
What actually differentiates the options
- ·A documented, versioned extraction process for each Dynamics 365 evidence source (SoD violation report, workflow history, change tracking, Purview audit log) that TeamMate+ workpapers reference by name rather than a generic 'ERP evidence' attachment.
- ·Named ownership of the extraction queries or data management framework jobs feeding TeamMate+, with the methodology documented somewhere durable beyond one administrator's institutional knowledge.
- ·TeamMate+ findings written against specific Dynamics 365 roles, duties, workflows, or tables — with the SoD rule set version or testing-period reference included — so findings remain testable as the environment changes.
- ·Purview audit log evidence included in the TeamMate+ evidence set for any engagement where Power Platform or Power Apps extend the Dynamics 365 environment, not just F&O-native change tracking.
- ·A defined handoff point between TeamMate+ (engagement management, workpapers, findings) and Dynamics 365 (evidence source), so neither the audit team nor IT assumes the other owns evidence production.
Requirement, control, evidence
| Requirement | Control | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| ICFR testing evidence must be repeatable and comparable across periods (Section 404) | TeamMate+ testing procedures reference a documented, versioned Dynamics 365 extraction method for each evidence type used in testing. | TeamMate+ procedure methodology field showing the named extraction query or job, cross-referenced to the actual evidence file attached for that period. |
| Disclosure controls must be evidenced at quarter-end (Section 302) | Workflow approval evidence extracted from Dynamics 365 and imported into the relevant TeamMate+ quarter-end testing procedure before sign-off. | TeamMate+ workpaper showing the imported workflow history extract, sample selection, and reviewer sign-off date. |
| ITGC — findings must be tracked to remediation with re-testable specificity | TeamMate+ findings against Dynamics 365 controls identify the specific role, duty, or workflow object, with SoD rule set version referenced. | Findings register entry in TeamMate+ showing the specific control object named, remediation action, and re-test result against the current rule set. |
| ITGC — audit coverage must extend to Power Platform activity connected to the ERP | TeamMate+ evidence set for change management and access testing includes Microsoft Purview audit log extracts alongside F&O-native change tracking. | TeamMate+ workpaper attachment showing combined F&O and Purview evidence for the testing period, with Power Platform-originated changes traced to approval. |
What this actually costs
| Cost driver | Low | High | What moves it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extraction pipeline design and TeamMate+ workpaper structure build | $35,000 | $110,000 | Scales with number of distinct Dynamics 365 evidence sources integrated and whether extraction is manual/query-based or a scheduled data management framework job. |
| TeamMate+ testing procedure and findings template redesign for Dynamics 365 specificity | $20,000 | $70,000 | Driven by how many existing generic 'ERP evidence' procedures need to be rebuilt to reference specific Dynamics 365 sources and versioning. |
| Ongoing extraction maintenance and testing-cycle support | $25,000/yr | $100,000/yr | Depends on testing frequency, number of in-scope entities, and how often Dynamics 365 role or workflow changes require the extraction logic to be updated. |
- · Ranges assume TeamMate+ is already licensed and in use by internal audit; TeamMate+ implementation itself is out of scope.
- · Figures are illustrative estimates based on typical mid-market to large-enterprise engagements pairing Dynamics 365 with a dedicated audit management platform, not a quote for a specific organization.
- · TeamMate+ and Dynamics 365 licensing costs are excluded — this reflects advisory, integration, and process-design labor only.
A representative scenario
A hypothetical insurance services company uses TeamMate+ for its internal audit function and Dynamics 365 F&O as its core financial system. For two years, the SoD testing procedure in TeamMate+ has simply attached 'SoD Report.xlsx' each quarter with no documentation of how the report was generated, and the analyst who originally built the extraction query left the company eighteen months ago. When a new external audit partner asks whether the same testing method was used consistently across the two-year period, internal audit cannot demonstrate it — the current SoD extracts look plausible but nobody can confirm the underlying query still matches what was run originally. A remediation effort typically involves reverse-engineering and re-documenting the extraction logic against the live SoD rule set, formally naming a query owner, and rewriting the TeamMate+ procedure's methodology field to reference the documented extraction by name and version rather than a generic file attachment, alongside adding a Purview audit log extract that had never been part of the evidence set. This pattern — evidence that was real but undocumented, discovered only when institutional memory left the building — is common enough in TeamMate+/Dynamics 365 pairings that it is presented here as illustrative, not as a specific client outcome.
Common questions
No. There is no native, out-of-box connector between TeamMate+ and Dynamics 365 F&O. The integration in practice is a scheduled extraction process — a saved query or data management framework job pulling SoD violations, workflow history, or change logs out of Dynamics 365 — that is then imported or attached into TeamMate+ workpapers manually or via file import.
Book an assessment
Get a scoping call on dynamics 365 teammate audit software for your organisation's platform and entity structure.
Book an Assessment →