SAP C_THR81 Exam Syllabus Topics:

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 tenant, a consultant is validating an internal move process in the web-based UI before user training. Managers can select the employee’s company and business unit, but for one newly activated organizational structure the location list is not empty and not fully missing. Instead, it includes locations that belong to an adjacent structure, causing valid-looking but incorrect choices during testing.
Other organizational structures display the expected filtered location values. The customer wants the process corrected without broadening location availability across unrelated structures, because downstream data quality and reporting depend on controlled location selection. They also do not want a separate move process for the new structure.
What should the consultant investigate first?
Response:

A) Review the organizational associations for company, business unit, and location in the new structure, then correct the relationship controlling filtered location availability.
B) Ask managers to continue using the list and rely on training notes to choose the intended location during the move process.
C) Create duplicate location records for the new structure so the correct values appear separately from the adjacent structure.
D) Broaden location visibility for all related structures so users see the same combined location list during internal moves.

2. A consultant is validating a manager-led organizational reassignment process in a public cloud SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central tenant before regional user training. In the web-based UI, managers can select company and legal entity, but for one newly activated operating structure the department list includes valid-looking departments from a neighboring structure. The process remains usable, but testers are choosing incorrect combinations because the filtered scope is broader than intended.
Other structures display the correct narrowed department set. The customer wants the issue fixed without broadening department visibility across unrelated structures and without creating a separate reassignment design for the new rollout group. Reporting integrity and approval routing depend on correct department selection.
What is the best next step?
Response:

A) Create duplicate department records for the new structure so the intended values appear separately from the neighboring structure.
B) Review the organizational associations for company, legal entity, and department in the new structure, then correct the relationship controlling filtered department availability.
C) Ask managers to continue using the current list and rely on training guidance to choose the correct department during reassignment.
D) Broaden department visibility for all nearby structures so the same larger list appears consistently during reassignment processing.

3. <strong>CHALLENGE 2 &#x2014; Shared Banquet Position Context for Event Staffing</strong> A banquet assignment can be saved, but manager-facing review later displays inconsistent resort context. The guest services director asks whether the team can proceed if HR coordination verifies banquet assignments outside the system.
Which response best reflects the performance-versus-governance trade-off?
Response:

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

4. In a public cloud SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central Core and Position Management project, a consultant is testing a workflow for manager-submitted temporary reporting changes. In the web-based environment, requests from all regions save and enter workflow correctly, but for one newly added business population the request bypasses the escalation review step whenever the transaction contains both a temporary end date and a sensitive reporting relationship.
Similar requests for other populations include the escalation review as designed. The customer wants to preserve the shared workflow framework and avoid creating separate population-specific workflows because post-go-live maintenance must stay low. The issue appeared after the business population was added during the latest configuration cycle.
What is the best corrective action?
Response:

A) Create a separate workflow for the new business population so the escalation review step is always included for those requests.
B) Review the routing rule or condition precedence for the newly added business population, then correct the logic for requests combining temporary end date and sensitive reporting relationship.
C) Ask managers in that population to submit sensitive temporary reporting changes through HR administrators until a broader redesign is available.
D) Add the escalation reviewer directly to the final approval step so all affected requests still receive additional oversight.

5. A consultant is supporting a scheduled import of future-dated position attribute corrections in a public cloud SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central and Position Management tenant before a monthly planning review. The file runs successfully for most rows, but a subset completes with warnings and leaves the affected positions unchanged. Those positions already have approved future-dated workflow requests for different attribute changes in the same effective period.
The customer wants the current administrative correction preserved without deleting the approved requests, because the future requests were already validated by the planning team. The monthly load must remain reusable and should not create a permanent manual exception process for positions with pending future changes.
What is the best next step?
Response:

A) Adjust the import handling for positions with overlapping future-dated workflow changes so the administrative correction fits the approved lifecycle timeline without replacing later records.
B) Exclude the affected positions from future imports and require HR administrators to maintain those records directly in the web-based UI each month.
C) Retry the warning rows with broader administrative permissions so the import can override the existing future-dated workflow state during this cycle.
D) Delete the approved future workflow requests for the affected positions, then rerun the warning rows so the administrative correction can load without conflict.

Solutions: