SAP Certified - SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central Core and Position Management (C_THR81_2605) Sample Questions:

1. In a public cloud SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central Core and Position Management tenant, a consultant is validating a process where position changes should drive downstream employee alignment before a regional restructuring review. In the web-based UI, a manager updates a position’s department assignment and saves successfully, but the incumbent employee record does not reflect the expected downstream change during validation. Other position updates, such as title corrections, appear normally.
The customer wants the consultant to correct the behavior without introducing manual follow-up steps for HR administrators, because the same operating model will be used across multiple regions. The project lead also wants to avoid broad redesign of working position processes this late in testing.
What is the best action to take first?
Response:

A) Ask HR administrators to manually adjust employee department values after each position update until the restructuring review is complete.
B) Recreate the affected positions with new identifiers so the employee records can inherit the correct department values from newly built objects.
C) Review the configuration and propagation dependency between the position change and employee update behavior, then correct the specific mapping or rule that governs department alignment.
D) Give managers additional edit access to employee records so they can correct downstream data directly after saving a position change.

2. A consultant is testing a manager-initiated change process in SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central Core and Position Management. In the public cloud web-based environment, a workflow starts correctly when a manager submits a temporary reporting change, but requests for one employee segment are routed to an outdated approver group instead of the current regional reviewer.
The older approver group still exists for historical cases, and the transaction saves successfully. The customer wants the consultant to restore the current routing logic without deleting prior workflow structures or creating separate full workflows for every employee segment, because maintenance effort must stay low after go-live.
What is the best corrective action?
Response:

A) Add the current regional reviewer to the outdated approver group so every affected request reaches someone who can still approve it.
B) Replace the workflow with separate end-to-end versions for each employee segment so the correct reviewer can be assigned directly.
C) Review the rule or routing condition that resolves the approver group for the affected segment, then correct the logic so it selects the current regional reviewer.
D) Ask managers to submit those requests through HR administrators until the older approver group is retired from the tenant.

3. <strong>CHALLENGE 3 &#x2014; District Manager Access for Municipal Boundaries</strong> A district manager can access employees in one assigned treatment plant but cannot view a mobile repair position that belongs to their district responsibility. Another unassigned pumping station position appears in their review list.
What should the consultant validate first?
Response:

A) Whether HR services can review the mobile repair position instead of the district manager during UAT.
B) Whether the permission role, target population, and district responsibility assignment align for both assigned and unassigned records.
C) Whether the employee creation import should be reloaded before any access testing continues.
D) Whether the district manager should be given access to all records until the mobile repair position list is corrected.

4. A consultant is validating a position hold process in SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central and Position Management before a quarterly planning freeze. In the public cloud web-based environment, HR specialists can place selected positions on hold and save successfully. The hold status is visible on the position record, but for a subset of those positions the expected restriction on downstream replacement planning does not apply, and planners can still mark them for upcoming action.
Older on-hold positions behave correctly. The customer confirms the affected records belong to a newly introduced position family used for rotational assignments and wants to keep that family because planning and reporting depend on it. The consultant must correct the issue without requiring planners to monitor held positions manually.
What is the best first action?
Response:

A) Review the dependency between the new position family and hold-state enforcement, then correct the configuration controlling replacement-planning restrictions after save.
B) Give planners broader permissions so they can decide case by case whether held positions should still be used in replacement planning.
C) Recreate the affected positions under an older family so the existing hold behavior applies immediately.
D) Ask planners to maintain a manual exclusion list of held rotational-assignment positions during the quarterly planning freeze.

5. <strong>CHALLENGE 2 &#x2014; Facilities Position Context for Building Teams</strong> A facilities assignment can be saved, but the manager-facing review later displays inconsistent campus context. The registrar&#x2019;s office asks whether the team can proceed if HR administration verifies facilities assignments outside the system.
Which response best reflects the performance-versus-governance trade-off?
Response:

A) Open all facilities positions to operations managers temporarily so they can confirm assignments faster during validation.
B) Proceed with offline HR verification because it preserves the planning schedule and the assignment record saves successfully.
C) Narrow the validation set and verify representative facilities assignments in the system before relying on offline confirmation.
D) Stop all academic and facilities testing until every position record across the university is rebuilt.

Solutions: