Reimagining the Power Platform: How I Would Have Built It Differently

Introduction:

The Power Platform is an incredible suite of tools. With Power BI, Power Apps, Power Automate, and Power Virtual Agents, Microsoft has provided a comprehensive set of capabilities for organizations to streamline processes, improve decision-making, and foster collaboration. But as with any platform, there are always areas for potential improvement.

In this blog post, I’m going to walk through how I would have approached building the Power Platform if I had a clean slate. This isn't to say the current iteration isn’t impressive—it certainly is—but these are just a few tweaks and design considerations that, from my perspective, would make the platform even more powerful and user-friendly.

---

1. Data-Centric Foundation

Current State: The Power Platform is built on Dataverse, which is great for managing data across apps and integrations. However, Dataverse is often seen as "just another database" by users, sometimes creating confusion around its role.

What I Would Change: I’d build the Power Platform around data as a core asset. Everything should be designed with data centrality in mind, ensuring seamless integration across systems. There should be clearer messaging that Dataverse is the glue holding everything together, not just another database, and its power should be fully leveraged from the start.

Why It Matters: When businesses see data as the core of their operations, they can make more informed decisions. This would help Power Platform users recognize the importance of data unification across tools and push them to build solutions with a holistic view of their data assets.

---

2. Unified User Interface

Current State: Each product in the Power Platform has its own interface, and while there are consistencies across Power BI, Power Apps, and Power Automate, they still feel somewhat separate.

What I Would Change: I’d aim for a more unified interface where users can seamlessly switch between Power Apps, Power Automate, and Power BI without having to hop between different screens. This could be similar to what Microsoft Teams does, where users have apps embedded inside the same workspace.

Why It Matters: A unified UI reduces friction. Users would no longer have to re-orient themselves as they switch between tools. This would foster a more streamlined workflow, saving time and reducing the cognitive load on users.

---

3. Enhanced Collaboration Tools

Current State: The Power Platform enables team collaboration, but the collaboration tools (like commenting, shared workspaces, etc.) could be better integrated.

What I Would Change: I’d build in more robust real-time collaboration features, similar to how users can co-edit in Office 365 products. Imagine building a Power App or an automated workflow while chatting with your team in real-time, all within the same interface.

Why It Matters: Collaboration is key to building effective solutions quickly. Improved collaboration would enhance productivity, reduce back-and-forth, and empower teams to iterate faster.

---

4. Pre-Built Templates and AI Recommendations

Current State: There are a good number of templates for Power Apps and Power Automate, but they often feel like starting points rather than fully-fledged solutions.

What I Would Change: I’d incorporate more AI-driven recommendations and pre-built templates based on industry-specific best practices. This would make the Power Platform more accessible for users with less technical expertise and enable organizations to get more value out of the box.

Why It Matters: By leveraging AI to guide users towards the right solutions, you remove barriers to entry and speed up the development process. Additionally, pre-built templates tailored to specific industries or common use cases would minimize the need for heavy customization.

---

5. Marketplace for Apps and Automations

Current State: Power Platform users can share apps or automations within their organizations, but there’s not a robust public marketplace to share solutions outside of their own organizations.

What I Would Change: I’d build a marketplace where users can share their apps, automations, and insights across the broader Power Platform community. This would be similar to how app stores work, where users can browse, download, and install community-created tools.

Why It Matters: A marketplace would encourage innovation and community collaboration. It would allow users to quickly find solutions to common problems without having to reinvent the wheel, thereby increasing the overall value of the platform.

---

6. Low-Code and Pro-Code Harmony

Current State: Power Platform is predominantly a low-code environment, but as more complex use cases emerge, the need for pro-code capabilities grows.

What I Would Change: I’d make sure there’s a perfect balance between low-code and pro-code. By embedding more developer-friendly tools within the platform (like custom APIs, more advanced scripting languages, etc.), Power Platform would better cater to both citizen developers and professional developers alike.

Why It Matters: Ensuring harmony between low-code and pro-code ensures that organizations can handle both simple and complex use cases without needing to switch platforms or adopt other solutions. It also allows companies to scale their solutions more effectively.

---

Conclusion: Building a Stronger Power Platform

The Power Platform is already a robust toolset, empowering organizations to automate workflows, create apps, and analyze data without heavy technical investment. However, by making the platform more data-centric, enhancing collaboration, unifying the user interface, and providing more out-of-the-box tools, I believe Microsoft could make the platform even more valuable to businesses around the world.

At its heart, a more interconnected, user-friendly, and scalable Power Platform will benefit everyone, from citizen developers to advanced tech teams, allowing for a more seamless and integrated way of building the future.

 

Facets of D365/Power Platform Fit-Gap Analysis

 Introduction:

What's needed to perform a fit-gap analysis? What is it?

A fit-gap analysis identifies the differences between current business processes and system functionalities versus desired outcomes or requirements. It sounds simple, right?

However, for D365 or Power Platform, it involves analyzing business requirements against specific D365 CE modules or the Power Platform in general, which can be more challenging than it seems.

I'll explore the different "facets" of fit-gap analysis, explain my approach to each, and share real-world examples from my experience.

Let's dive into it.

Requirements Statement:

Let's assume we've just completed a session/meeting and have a set of high-level requirements. The customer, having seen D365 demos, is eager to adopt it for sales or case management.

D365 CE's advantage is its pre-built features and robust Dataverse, with standard tables for common scenarios like the Common Data Model (CDM). However, the key problem is matching these features to the customer's unique needs.

A fit-gap analysis helps align system features with business needs, identifying where features meet (fit) requirements and where they fall short (gap).

For example, a tour operation company may need to:

• Capture incoming client requests
• Maintain a list of business clients and contacts
• Manage a catalog of tour offerings and prices
• Create tour proposals
• Maintain a list of vendors
• Send notifications to clients and vendors

 

Based on the above requirements, we can typically map them to some out-of-the-box tables, as shown below:

Out of Box	Customized
Lead	Client Request
Account	Client
Contact	Vendors
Opportunity	Tour
Product	Vendor offering

 

Mapping these requirements to existing tables/features usually seems straightforward, but there are cases when it isn't.

The last requirement, notifications, can be tricky. Customers often expect an out-of-the-box solution and are hesitant about additional customization costs, which can lead to ongoing support expenses.

Power Platform offers options like classic emails (often ignored by receivers) and more modern in-app notifications. But is it a "fit" if we need a custom workflow or Power Automate Flow? Can we still call it a fit when complex logic requires a week of development? These grey areas can make even seasoned professionals question their approach. So, if you're facing these thoughts, we all are on the same journey.

Partial Fit:

The concept of a "partial fit" is often used to address this.

Explain to customers that while tools like Power Automate can meet their requirements, they may be needed to deliver the outcome fully. This reassures them that Power Platform is a solid investment while being transparent about the extra development required for their specific needs.

Is it a fit or not, or in between?

Fit-Gap Analysis:

Sometimes, a fit-gap analysis becomes a competition, especially when customers are still evaluating different options, like D365, Power Platform, or non-Microsoft products.

The goal is to ensure that the D365/Power Platform stands out and best "fits" their requirements. While doing this, we can also suggest alternative approaches to achieve the same outcomes.

So far, customers have been open to new working methods and proposed process improvements.

Unavoidable Gaps:

Some gaps are unavoidable.

For example, a customer wanted users to set their own notification preferences when a record updates or status changes.

While this is standard in Azure DevOps, it isn't easily possible with D365/Power Platform without custom development. In such cases, even calling it a "partial fit" feels like a stretch.

Integration requirements often fall into this grey area. If custom connectors or plugins are needed, I usually classify it as a gap. However, I label it as a partial gap if I can use Power Automate and existing connectors.

Still, marking something as a gap can heavily influence the customer’s final decision, especially when dealing with uncommon software integrations. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Fit Percentage:

The number games, some customers are very “number-driven.” Their focus is on the numbers and the highest percentage of "fit” will win it. This is challenging but it's a fact to face

Generally, D365 and Power Platform score well. Losing a prospect can leave us wondering where we lost it, whether the fit-gap score, cost, or something else tipped the scales.

I hope this will be helpful

Thanks!!!

Conclusion

At its core, fit-gap analysis is a powerful tool for the early design stages, ensuring our solutions follow a "product-first principle."

However, it's essential to go beyond a checkbox approach when comparing options. The real goal is to give customers a long-term vision of how Power Platform can benefit their business and deliver real value.

With Microsoft continually adding new features, I'm seeing more "fits” than ever, making the future of fit-gap analysis even more exciting!