Upgrade NF2.0 to Attain 3.01B...need advise

My boss give me one month to upgrade a NF 2.0 SE database with over 500 changed objects, to Attain 3.01. Can someone with experience give me some advise of the quickest way to do it. I only had done one upgrading before, from NF2.01-> NF2.60. Do I really need to do all steps from NF2.0->NF2.01 then NF2.01->NF2.6 and then NF2.6-> 3.01. The database is in swedish. When should I make the translation, on NF 2.01 or NF2.60? Anyone who can give some advise??

In U.S./Canada, we have an upgrade toolkit that handles an upgrade straight from NF2.00 up to NA3.01.A. I’ve been through one upgrade where I took a CA_NF2.50 up to the current CA_NA3.01.B. I have some thoughts that I will share with you… #1. Do you have an upgrade toolkit available for from your NTR? This would be the first step in performing the upgrade. Also make sure you upgrade you developer license NOW! #2. Your current database is in the Swedish language, correct? If so, pay SPECIAL attention to the sections on language upgrade. I fortunately didn’t have to do any language upgrading. #3. With 500 changed objects, I would start comparing the tables and make sure all the required fields are there. New objects are obviously the easiest because they don’t have a corresponding upgrade in Attain to compare to. I let a lot of the changes to forms and reports slide through (I had significantly fewer changes than you) to the Attain, and I just viewed the objects that I had in my change log that I knew were modified in the 2.50. I then performed manual updates after the 3.01 objects were compiled. The last thing I did was re-create the custom reports after I completed the data upgrade, because it makes the most sense to test custom reports with the customer’s own data. Also, during the upgrade I ran into problems with the 99 000 000 series objects (because my license doesn’t have Manufacturing yet), so in instances where you need to perform language changes to the database, you may need to skip those objects if you do not have the Manufacturing on your license either. (Not an issue if you customer doesn’t have Manufacturing. If they do, you REALLY need to get Manufacturing upgraded on your license, of course!) #4. Data upgrade. This was a great challenge as the upgrade kit I was using was from U.S. and there were field specific changes for Canada that weren’t handled correctly (of course). The data upgrade tools must be customized as well to make sure you get the customer custom fields changed up. There was a lot of sitting and running, then having it crap out on something, and then reloading from the backup and running again when I was working through the data upgrade. There’s not much you can do about that… just grind your teeth and push through. #5. In U.S./Canada, the toolkit recommended not upgrading if your existing database uses the “Customer Care” features (but I think you don’t have those in the 2.00 version, so you are safe), and of course you cannot upgrade if you use Advance Distribution (again, I believe you are safe). #6. There was a recommendation in the U.S./Canada toolkit if you are running the server as SQL to upgrade the SQL server to SQL 2000. While not required, it is recommended, because by 3.10 (in North America, at least) the ONLY option will be SQL 2000. This is all I can think of right now, but should you have any further specific questions, I’d be happy to help as much as I can. Regards! Kristopher Webb Kelar Corporation, Canada

It’s all, of course, very depending on the type of modifications done in the old database. Do these concern areas where Attain is having standard functionality? For example, Service Management is standard now. Is the design of the old tailoring work still in line with the way the company is doing their business? If running Financials version 2.00, it probably will be over 3 years old. Time to look at a revision? Don’t they want to start using Attain features like multiple dimensions? As food for thoughts: we are currently updating a customer from NF 2.50 to NA 3.10. Analyzing the current and near future needs/wishes against the original design, it turned out we (our customer and us) were better off with a complete overhaul and redesign. Bit more work, but it will bring the system up to level again. Being able to use multiple dimensions for detailed analysis was, in this case, an important factor. John