SAP C_THR81_2605

SAP C_THR81_2605 試験シラバストピック:

SAP Certified - SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central Core and Position Management (C_THR81_2605) 認定 C_THR81_2605 試験問題：

1. In a public cloud SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central and Position Management tenant, a consultant is validating a position reactivation process before a controlled staffing restart. In the web-based UI, HR specialists can change selected positions from inactive to active and save successfully. The active status is visible on the position record, but for a subset of reactivated positions the expected availability for downstream nomination activity does not return, and planners still cannot use them in the next preparation step.
Older reactivated positions behave correctly. The customer confirms the affected records belong to a newly introduced position class used for temporary expansion roles and wants to keep that class because planning reports depend on it. The consultant must restore correct lifecycle behavior without requiring planners to track usable positions manually.
What is the best first action?
Response:

A) Recreate the affected positions under an older position class so the existing reactivation behavior applies immediately.
B) Review the dependency between the new position class and reactivation-state handling, then correct the configuration controlling downstream availability after save.
C) Give planners broader permissions so the reactivated positions can be selected even if their current downstream state is incomplete.
D) Ask planners to maintain a manual list of reactivated temporary expansion positions that should be treated as usable during preparation.

2. A consultant is supporting a scheduled import of employee supervisor corrections in a public cloud SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central tenant before month-end validation. The file runs successfully for most employees, but several rows complete with warnings and no update. The affected employees all have pending workflow requests for future-dated organizational moves.
Current records are stable, and the same file updates other populations correctly in the web-based environment. The customer wants the supervisor corrections loaded without cancelling the pending workflow items or creating a permanent exception process for HR operations. The consultant must choose a repeatable solution that preserves approval discipline and timeline integrity.
What is the best next step?
Response:

A) Cancel the pending workflow requests for the affected employees, then rerun the warning rows after the current import cycle finishes.
B) Adjust the import handling for employees with pending future-dated organizational moves so the supervisor correction coexists with the in-process timeline.
C) Exclude the affected employees from future supervisor imports and require HR operations to update them directly in the web-based UI each month.
D) Retry the warning rows with broader administrative privileges so the import can override the pending workflow state for this cycle.

3. <strong>CHALLENGE 4 &#x2014; Position Change Routing for Resort Review</strong> After a targeted correction to banquet position context, one position change routes to the expected resort manager. Another comparable banquet change still remains with HR coordination.
Which next step best avoids a partial-fix trap?
Response:

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

4. <strong>CHALLENGE 4 &#x2014; Transfer Workflow Routing for Plant Review</strong> A production transfer routes to the expected plant reviewer, but a comparable engineering-center transfer remains with corporate HR. The same plant reviewer can approve other employee changes in assigned production areas.
What should be validated before changing workflow routing?
Response:

A) Whether the workflow notification text tells users that engineering transfers may remain with corporate HR.
B) Whether corporate HR can approve all transfers centrally until the weekly workforce planning review is complete.
C) Whether the engineering employee context, position assignment, and plant responsibility support reviewer determination for the affected transfer.
D) Whether every plant manager should be added to all transfer workflows during the hypercare period.

5. <strong>CHALLENGE 2 &#x2014; Claims Surge Position Context Across Regions</strong> Temporary claims surge positions are available during assignment, but some assigned surge-team employees show regional context that does not match the shared surge staffing model. Standard claims position assignments behave as expected.
Which validation action best distinguishes surge-team position behavior from a general employee creation concern?
Response:

A) Ask HR operations to complete all surge-team assignments centrally until policy renewal staffing scenarios begin.
B) Test representative surge-team position assignments and manager-facing review results against the intended region and service-line context.
C) Convert affected surge-team positions into standard claims positions so they follow the working claims assignment pattern.
D) Remove regional context from surge-team positions so assignment can be completed without regional validation.

質問と回答：