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

1. <strong>CHALLENGE 1 &#x2014; Service Line References for Underwriting Records</strong> The operations sponsor asks whether SIT can continue if only the affected underwriting records are corrected. HR operations has limited time before policy renewal staffing scenarios are added.
Which evidence best supports continuing with bounded scope?
Response:

A) HR operations can manually update the reviewed association for all records before the staffing scenarios begin.
B) The workflow notification log shows that position-change messages were generated for the affected employees.
C) Regional managers can see all underwriting records after temporary access is granted for the SIT window.
D) The affected records are linked to specific revised reference values, and unaffected claims records still validate against the intended regional pattern.

2. <strong>CHALLENGE 4 &#x2014; Position Change Routing for Regional Review</strong> A tester suggests changing workflow routing so underwriting support position changes always go directly to the regional manager, regardless of employee context. This would reduce pending HR operations items before the next cycle.
Why is this approach less appropriate?
Response:

A) It changes routing before confirming whether employee context and position assignment already determine the correct reviewer.
B) It prevents HR operations from creating employee records for underwriting support employees.
C) It is less appropriate because regional managers cannot approve any Employee Central workflow tasks.
D) It is less appropriate because workflow routing should always be completed by HR operations in SIT.

3. A consultant is supporting a scheduled import of future-dated employee supervisor adjustments in a public cloud SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central tenant before a monthly validation cycle. The file processes correctly for most rows, but a subset completes with warnings and leaves the affected employees unchanged. Those employees already have approved future workflow requests for organizational reassignment in the same effective period.
The customer wants the supervisor adjustment preserved without deleting the approved reassignment requests, because those requests were already validated by regional HR. They also do not want a permanent manual exception path for employees who have approved future changes. The consultant must keep the administrative load repeatable and governance-aligned.
What is the best next step?
Response:

A) Retry the warning rows with broader administrative permissions so the import can override the approved future state during this monthly cycle.
B) Delete the approved future reassignment workflow requests, then rerun the warning rows so the supervisor adjustment can be loaded without conflict.
C) Exclude all employees with approved future workflow requests from future supervisor imports and require HR administrators to maintain those cases manually.
D) Adjust the import handling for employees with overlapping approved future changes so the supervisor adjustment fits into the effective-dated timeline without replacing later records.

4. <strong>CHALLENGE 1 &#x2014; Engineering Department References for Transfer Records</strong> Production transfers and engineering-center transfers use the same employee update process, yet only some engineering-center records show incorrect plant context after review. Corporate HR wants to avoid broad reprocessing unless the cause is repeatable.
What should the consultant determine first?
Response:

A) Whether affected records reference plant or engineering department values adjusted during final cutover preparation.
B) Whether corporate HR analysts can manually override plant association during the weekly planning cycle.
C) Whether plant managers can approve engineering transfers without reviewing employee position context.
D) Whether all workflow notifications for engineering transfers use the same message template.

5. A consultant is validating a manager-driven internal movement process in a public cloud SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central Core tenant before a pilot launch. In the web-based UI, the transaction saves for all tested employees, but for one newly introduced employee category the expected post-save update to a related employment information field does not occur when the movement reason is marked as temporary.
Permanent movement reasons work correctly for the same category, and older employee categories behave as expected for both cases. The customer wants to keep a single standardized movement process across the tenant and does not want HR operations to repair the related field manually after each temporary movement.
What should the consultant investigate first?
Response:

A) Review the transaction configuration or derivation dependency for temporary movement reasons in the newly introduced employee category, then correct the post-save update logic.
B) Ask HR operations to maintain the related employment information field manually for temporary moves in the new category until after pilot completion.
C) Grant managers direct edit access to the related employment information field so they can complete the missing update in the same transaction cycle.
D) Reclassify employees in the new category into an older category during temporary moves so the existing update behavior can be reused.

Solutions: