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

1. <strong>CHALLENGE 4 &#x2014; Transfer Workflow Routing for Plant Review</strong> After a targeted correction to engineering position context, one transfer routes to the expected plant reviewer. Another comparable engineering transfer still remains with corporate HR.
Which next step best avoids a partial-fix trap?
Response:

A) Remove corporate HR visibility from pending workflow requests so plant review becomes the only visible path.
B) Close workflow validation because at least one corrected engineering transfer reached the expected reviewer.
C) Retest representative transfer transactions across affected engineering contexts and compare reviewer outcomes.
D) Apply the same position-context correction to every engineering record and assume routing will align after refresh.

2. In a public cloud SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central tenant, a consultant is supporting a scheduled import of employee organizational corrections before a monthly reconciliation cycle. The file runs in the web-based environment and reports successful completion, but several rows are processed with warnings and leave the target values unchanged. The affected employees all have pending future organizational moves already recorded for a later effective date. Other employees in the same file update correctly.
The customer wants the current corrections loaded without deleting or changing the approved future moves, and they do not want a separate manual exception process each month. The consultant must choose an action that preserves timeline integrity and keeps the administrative load repeatable.
What is the best next step?
Response:

A) Route the warning rows to HR administrators for manual correction each month and keep those employees out of future import files.
B) Adjust the import handling for employees with future-dated organizational moves so the current correction can coexist with the existing approved timeline.
C) Delete the pending future organizational moves for the affected employees, then rerun the warning rows so the current corrections can load cleanly.
D) Retry the warning rows under a higher-access role so the import can override the future organizational state for the current cycle.

3. <strong>CHALLENGE 1 &#x2014; Location Data Readiness for Clinic Employee Records</strong> During template validation, HR analysts can create employee records for clinic locations, but rehabilitation-center records show different required-field behavior. Recent configuration notes show that some location-related values were refreshed after employee and position validation began.
Which action best supports a controlled readiness decision?
Response:

A) Continue testing because the records save successfully and required-field behavior can be reviewed after rollout.
B) Give HR analysts broader edit access so they can manually complete the missing fields during validation.
C) Compare affected records against active location and department values, then correct only records with confirmed dependent-data impact.
D) Pause all validation and rebuild every location, department, employee, and position record from the beginning.

4. A consultant is supporting a controlled update of employee data in a web-based SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central tenant. After an import, the file reports successful processing for many rows, but a set of employee records remains unchanged even though the source file contains valid-looking updates. No system-wide outage is reported, and the unchanged employees belong to one restricted population used for sensitive HR administration.
The customer wants the consultant to restore the update process without removing existing protection boundaries around that population. They also want to avoid editing the records manually because the same controlled load will be repeated each month.
Which action should the consultant take first?
Response:

A) Review whether the import process or responsible role has the correct authorized scope for the restricted employee population, then adjust only the access needed for the approved update path.
B) Split the file into smaller batches and rerun it several times because unchanged rows usually indicate a volume-related processing delay.
C) Move the restricted employees temporarily into the general population so the same import can update all records without exceptions.
D) Ask HR administrators to update the restricted population manually after each monthly import cycle to preserve the current permissions.

5. <strong>CHALLENGE 4 &#x2014; Workflow Routing for Cross-Regional Position Changes</strong> A position-change request can be initiated successfully, but approver assignment varies when the position belongs to a region whose corporate data was adjusted after the original import. The team is considering a workflow rule change.
What should be validated before changing workflow routing?
Response:

A) Whether the workflow notification text clearly explains that approver assignment may vary during testing.
B) Whether all regional managers can be added as approvers to every position-change workflow.
C) Whether the position and organizational context used by the workflow is stable and correctly reflected in affected records.
D) Whether HR specialists can bypass the approval step for test records until routing is stabilized.

Solutions: