About Alliason
The right Microsoft application can still become the wrong project.
Choosing the application is only one part of the decision. Data migration, integrations, security, testing, training, cutover, and support can each change the budget and the path to go-live.
​
Alliason brings those questions into the open before they become scope changes, delays, or support problems.
40+ years of experience
Combined Microsoft business application experience across Alliason and the specialists available to support client engagements.
Microsoft business applications
Dynamics 365, Business Central, Power Platform, and Copilot.
Five ways to engage
Confidence Roadmaps, Assessments, Implementation, Client-Side Advocacy, and Managed Services.
Microsoft Partner
Focused on Business Applications
A new report or integration can change far more than the original request.
A report may depend on data the system does not capture today. An integration can introduce identity, security, error handling, and testing requirements. A process exception can add approvals, roles, or configuration across several teams.
​
Before a change is accepted, we trace what else it touches. That includes data, integrations, security, testing, training, support, cost, and timing.
Managing Director
Mike Kraft
Managing Director, Alliason
Mike has nearly 20 years of experience helping companies plan, build, fix, and improve Microsoft business applications.
​
As Managing Director, he leads Alliason's growth and direction. He shapes the services the firm brings to market, builds its team and partnerships, and sets the standards Alliason uses when advising clients and delivering projects.
​
Mike has seen projects start with a clear business problem, then become dominated by requirements, exceptions, and technical decisions. That experience shaped Alliason's approach: define the problem first, set clear system boundaries, and show what major decisions do to cost and timing before they are approved.
​
That is why Alliason starts by defining the business problem, the system boundaries, and the decisions that can materially change cost or timing.
​
Mike is building Alliason so clients can get senior guidance across Microsoft business applications, with specialists brought in when the engagement requires them.
Before a Microsoft project is approved, four questions should have clear answers.
These answers determine what must be designed, integrated, tested, trained for, and supported. If one is still unclear, the budget and timeline are being set before a material project decision is resolved.
What problem is the project supposed to fix?
Name the process, financial result, customer issue, reporting gap, or control problem that justifies the investment.
What belongs in the application?
Decide which processes and records belong in the Microsoft application, what stays elsewhere, and which systems must exchange data.
What else changes if a requirement is approved?
A requirement may affect integrations, security roles, reporting, testing, training, licenses, support, or the schedule. Those effects belong in the decision.
Who owns the application after go-live?
Define who handles support, Microsoft releases, security, enhancements, environment management, and the decisions required to keep the application usable.
Clients bring us in when the problem spans several teams, systems, or providers.
A feature comparison alone will not resolve these situations. Someone has to trace the process, the data, the ownership, and the cost of changing it.
Before buying or replacing a system
Leadership needs to know whether the application can support the required processes, data, controls, reporting, and integrations before a budget is approved.
When an implementation is already creating concern
Scope is moving, design decisions are unclear, testing is exposing gaps, or new requests are changing cost and timing faster than leadership can evaluate them.
When systems disagree
Finance, sales, service, or operations are reconciling records, entering the same information more than once, or rebuilding reports because applications do not agree.
When users have built manual steps around a live application
People are relying on spreadsheets, email, side databases, or manual approvals because the application no longer supports the process as it actually runs.
Several applications can support one company. Shared records still need a clear owner.
A customer may exist in Sales, Customer Service, Business Central, and marketing systems. The same can be true for products, projects, orders, and financial transactions. The important question is which application owns each shared record and what the others are allowed to create, update, or use.
​
Different applications can remain in place. Define where each record is maintained, what information moves between systems, and who is responsible when the records disagree.
Choose the system of record
Define where customers, products, projects, financial transactions, approvals, and other shared records are created and maintained.
Define the handoff
Specify what information moves between applications, when it moves, and what the receiving team needs to continue the process.
Add automation or AI to a defined task
Use automation or Copilot where the trigger, source data, allowed action, and required human approval are clear.
A go-live is not proof that the problem was solved.
The useful evidence comes after the application is in use: faster reporting, fewer manual steps, more reliable data, better service, stronger controls, or another measurable change the client can verify.
​
Our client stories focus on the problem that led to the project, the Microsoft applications involved, and the result the client reported.
Highlight Health
From a stalled engagement to a working claims process
Highlight Health already had a Dynamics 365 system, but it did not support the way the company handled claims. The first build followed spreadsheets instead of the real claims process, and the work had stopped moving forward.
Alliason went back to the original plan, completed the promised work, and turned the disconnected screens into a claims process the team could use. Once that part was working, Alliason built a partner portal and trained the team.
​
The portal replaced a customer report that had taken staff eight to ten hours to prepare and send. Highlight Health did not have to throw everything away and start over.
"What stood out about Alliason was the discipline."
Sam K., CTO, Highlight Health
AVT Productions
From unused software to a sales tool the team uses every day
AVT Productions owned Dynamics 365 Sales, but the team barely used it. Follow-up was inconsistent, leaders could not see the state of each deal, and some automations were failing without anyone knowing.
Alliason reviewed the system before changing it. The risky setup was fixed first. Then Alliason built a clear sales process, follow-up steps, reporting, and dashboards around the way AVT finds and works new opportunities.
The team now works in Dynamics 365 Sales every day. Leaders can see active deals, overdue follow-up, and stalled opportunities without asking someone to rebuild the story. The system also runs on a foundation AVT controls.
"I'm feeling confident. I really like what Alliason has done. I have no anxiety at all, which is rare for me."
Sales Consultant advising AVT Productions
Alliason is most useful when leadership wants the decision tested before it is approved.
We can challenge assumptions, compare options, and trace what each choice changes. The strongest engagements also include the people who know the process and someone with the authority to decide when the evidence changes the direction.
Leadership wants assumptions challenged
The goal is not to defend a preferred answer. Requirements and recommendations can be questioned when the evidence points somewhere else.
More than one option is still credible
The company needs to understand what each option requires, what it costs, and what it gives up before choosing one.
The people who know the exceptions can participate
Subject-matter experts can explain the approvals, handoffs, reports, exceptions, and manual steps that do not appear in a feature list.
Someone has authority to make the decision
An executive sponsor can decide when new evidence changes scope, cost, timing, or the direction being considered.
Talk through the decision before more money is committed.
Tell us what has changed, where the current application or process is falling short, and what leadership needs to decide.
​
In a 30-minute call, we can determine whether the situation calls for a Confidence Roadmap, Assessment, Implementation, Client-Side Advocacy, Managed Services, or a different direction.
Microsoft Partner focused on Business Applications
Dynamics 365 · Business Central · Power Platform · Copilot