Why don’t we get rid of the end user questions section altogether. We can just ask our NSC instead of trying to figure something out ourselves. David, you are coming from a different perspective then the end user is, our NSC would charge 30 - 60 minutes just to produce the change order request. We have never had a change, no matter how small cost less then $500.
Hmmm, not a nice scenario. I am guessing then that Zen is in the same situation. You are probably aware that my unofficial nick name is “the Navision Police” [;)]
Its very disapointing to hear comments like this. I fully understand that NSCs need to make profits, and I know that feeding Navision developers is an expensive task for them, but NSCs do need to have mechanisms in place that allow them to deliver minor changes at acceptable costs.
Anyway… point taken…
The main purpose of the End User Questions forum, is exactly as you say, so that end users can learn things in the comunity instead of having to go to their NSC for everything.
Another use is when you know that there is a good chance that you will need to go to your NSC, but would like to make sure that the solution is not going to be an over kill. In this particular case, since I have done the exact same thing (vessel tracking) before, I know what is involved. I also know that there is a lot more involved than just these few fields, but getting permission to modify the record needs involvement from the NSC. Most of the actual work for the whole system will be in creating reports, which the End SUer should be able to do.
I beleive that by making good use of the Dynamics Users End User Questions forum, the user should be able to state clearlyt o the NSC what is needed, and keep the costs low. Then do all the time consuming work, (testing and reporting) themselves.
Again I say its very disapointing when I here about End Users that are not comfortable with their NSC.
I am agree with themave; not only mentioning about the cost but also about the timing. Lots of procedures (such as explained the request thru email/phone, fill out the request form, send the payment, etc) that is takes so much times to complete and get the feedback This is excluding on developing the system different from what requested. For many cases I have to test their program and report the bug/error and waiting another times for them to fix. Many times I solved the problems before they get back to me. Reading all the problems on Developer and User forum are helping me alot to solve problems. I know this is not a good indication for NSC (if you mentioned about they need to maKe profit) but I need to solve the problem fast as I can stop the business running.
But my major point is I want to LEARN about Navision and its codings. I know my portion and ability; if I think I can do it; I will do it myself. Otherwise, I will ask NSC to do it. I learn alot from both ways. Who knows I can be a Navision Developer someday, like you David Singleton or JohnCon or anybody who are expert in this forum. Who know someday I will take turn to help people to solve their problems.
Hopes this explained.
ZEN [:D]
Wow! I am glad it is almost time for the holiday (well for those of us in the US at least).
There really are two topics here, one is the Solution for Zen and the other a more intriguing discusion.
As to the solution for Zen… We must first take into account the fact that for his company they post the shipment/invoice prior to the information on shipping being known. That happens to (whether we like it or not) be a constraint. Therefore adding fields to the sales header/line serves little purpose. I am not aware of any code-unit existing that gives the client permission to modify fields in the sales header or sales line tables. These codeunits do exist for other tables such as the cust. ledger, vendor ledger, etc. So if we had added the fields directly to the tables a new code unit would have had to be created and permission to modify the tables, this would have required a development license. We all know that the solution here would have been different if we where using our developer’s license to code it.
Which leads to the overall discussion of the NSC (by the way we are no longer called that, but it is easier to say). The ability of a “good” NSC to exist requires that they make money. However they should not be killing the client with overcharges. In the US there realy is no such thing as a 30 minute modification. Time is involved and a thouough understanding of the what is being requested to insure that the modification only has to be done once.
Over the many, many years of Navision, I have seen lots good code and lots of horrific code made by both the client and by an NSC.
One of the many good things about this forum, is that is does create an interesting dynamic between the user’s (clients) and developer’s(NSC). I actually think it is very good for me to hear how the user’s really do go about trying to find their own solutions. Navision (at least for now) does offer an easy way to develop the product.
It might even be an interesting thread on its own, to discuss this in detail, and create a little “Do’s and Don’ts” for clients.
In the case of Zen and those like him that want to learn and find their own solutions, I think it is great and hope they have a wonderful journey down that path. We here in the forum can help them. And it is the diversity of our approaches that can help all of us.
In the case of TheMave, I have to say that based upon your statements about your NSC so far, I think they are very “suspect”!! I have never charged a client to make a change order, only to do the approved work. You may want to check out other partner’s in your area to see if they are doing the same. However, if your NSC does good work, then it might be worth the cost for those projects that you feel you cannot accomplish yourself.
Well with all that said, I hope in the end everyone finds Navision to be a great product, as I do!!
As someone who works for an end user and whon does not consider himself a consultant, I agree woth both themave and zen. However Jon’s coments are very poingant too.
I believe themave’s generally point is that we should use standard as far as possible is good, but different businesses have special requirements and some like more control than others. The beauty of Navision is it can cope with both. I agree with themave in that some NSCs overcode which causes upgrade problems. In this forum I beleive we get people who best use Navision and code as little as possible. Look at responses by Steven Weaver and Jon Cox, as well as David Singleton. In the case of the latter pair they have nothing to sell except good instalation (Steve is not is not independant undertand but provides practical responses) Apologies if wrong / upset anyone but a personal observation.
I know vanilla will not be suitable for all, and besopke work is necessary
I know one NSC who likes to develop clients in a similar way (in the same industry) so saving on support and upgrade which is I think a good way to go. Keep Vanilla as far a possible and seperately identify bespoke work so easier to identify and upgrade. I think a discussion on bes way to implement besopke work may be needed. We had separate setup tables, which seems better than appending fields to each setup table. Are bespoke codeunits with a reference to each best?
This may improve a short term vision by NSCs. I agree,
“Well with all that said, I hope in the end everyone finds Navision to be a great product, as I do!!”