Upgrade path

I wish to upgrade from Navision v 2.1 to Attain, but the VAR says that I must pay (a lot) for the upgrade conversion. I have not been offered an upgrade previously because the VAR says that the granules they created to customise our system have been superseded by the functionality in Attain, and therefore we would have to buy the upgrade as if it were a new product! The VAR says that their code units are not part of the upgrade agreement, even though the software maintenance licence states that upgrades must be offered only for the price of any media supplied. Does anyone have advice or experience of such a situation? I am willing to abandon the current version (and its customisation) and start all over with standard Attain if necessary, if this is the easiest upgrade path.

Most people who use navision/Attain have a modified version. It takes time (and so money) to upgrade to a new version. I am sure that all your current system does is not in Attain although I can well believe that parts of what you do is in there. As you know navision is sold in modules and you only prchase those you need. In you case you would also have purchased some codeunits,tables,reports and forms which the VAR would have written your system with. You would also have paid them for the time it takes them write, debug and install the modifcations. The bits Attain now does would be in a new module which indeed you would have to pay for if you wished to use. Your data would be stored differently so that needs to be transfered. Why do you want to upgrade, is there a feature that you can not live with out or do you just want to upgrade because there is a new version out. To upgrade is much easier than to start from scratch but it does take time. If the features that you customisation are now in Attain you may have to purchase extra granules. I would also expect that they work differently to you current system so you may have to pay for training for your staff. Why do you think its unfair that you have to pay for this. The time to upgrade is when you need to use the extra features. Paul Baxter

A potential source of confusion I see here might be the (at least) two meanings that can be assigned to the term “upgrade”. In one case, “upgrade” means the right to access and install a new version of Navision. Navision charges a fee for this privelege which may be paid by subscription (i.e. periodically) or all at once (when you decide you need the new version). All at once usually costs more but not always. An upgrade of the Navision granules does not include the cost of the effort required to implement it, just as the purchase of a new system license does not include the cost of the effort required to implement it. A second meaning for the term “upgrade” is the act of porting modifications and data from an older version of the system to a newer version. This is a labor intensive activity and is almost always charged for separately by the NSC (VAR), often on the basis of the amount of labor involved. This effort can be looked at as a compilation of several separate activities including the porting of any modifications, porting of data, definition of new operations processes, additional training and perhaps others. Dave Studebaker das@libertyforever.com Liberty Grove Software A Navision Services Partner

David, an ‘upgrade’ is an upgrade is an upgrade. The annual support and maintenance contract makes no distinction along the lines you suggest. My basic reason for wanting to move on to an upgraded version is to escape from the lemon of a system we currently have, in which, for example, we cannot produce an inventory valuation by item that agrees to the G/L, or get an IntraStat or VAT report, or age receivables correctly. The VAR has been unable to get the Navision system to provide these basic accounting reports, amongst other problems, and this has prevented us from expanding and developing our use of the system. For example, I can’t use the Landed Cost granule(which we paid for originally) because of the basic problem with inventory valuation. It took almost two years before foreign currency tranactions were being handled correctly, and it is still the case that some line item extensions on a sales invoice are randomly calculated incorrectly. I’m fed up with the VAR trying to fix the problems…I want a clean start, and a standard version of Attain, with its Advanced Distribution module and no VAR-developed enhancements should be far better than Financials 2.1 plus VAR distribution enhancements, and I don’t see why I have to pay more for a solution to the problems I have outlined. Navision themselves simply referred us back to the VAR instead of taking responsibility for sorting out poor quality VAR performance. Edited by - paulharper on 2002 Jun 15 17:11:31

The amount paid to Navision every year(or when one is willing to upgrade as the case may be)entitles Customer to upgrade to new version of the Product. What it means: Customer is entitled to use or benefit from those standard/general features which have been provided for in new version. Most of them related to Peformance enhancement, Problems correction etc. Thus a customer can upgrade to new version w/out purchasing any of the new granules. But in case, new functionality(granules)is required,ofcourse one has to pay for it. This is also true for extra Objects(Tables,Forms,Reports,Dataports or Codeunits) which have been purchased earlier. When one upgrades, the permission to these extra objects are retained in the license for new upgraded version. The decision to upgrade or not is one’s own decision based on what for the upgrade is desired and other issues mentioned above. Regards

It does sound as if thing not going at all well. If you are having such problems with your NSC then the answer is to move NSC’s. Why pay them more money if they cannot deliver the goods. It is not good that they cannot even deliver the basics. It is very important that when you enter an agreement for work to be done with anybody that you are sure that they can do it. But that does not help you does it. I think you should tell your NSC that you want to move to the basic 3.10 product and if you get no joy then you will move to another NSC. It is not good that any service company allows its relationship with its customers degenerate so that they have to speak out in a public forum like this. You have a license for most of the system and you are right that you can upgrade to a new version. It is very important that anybody who is installing Navision, you have to make sure that the system works as the specification. I know that’s hard and I know the spec changes as extra work is added. But don’t pay the last 10% until you are happy that it does work (my boss will kill me for saying that). But when you go with a NSC it is important that you know they are up to the job. Most NSC’s will go out of there way to make sure every thing works. They will be on site when you start to use the system and will go through every thing with you. But all this costs and is priced into what you pay. If you have no joy with you current NSC then you should move to another NSC but this time make sure they are up to the job. Paul Baxter

quote:


Originally posted by paulharper: Navision themselves simply referred us back to the VAR instead of taking responsibility for sorting ou


Hi Paul, this is common. Normally the local Navision distributors do not care much as long as only one customer complains about one NSC. I know one case [ http://www.navision.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3099&FORUM_ID=13&CAT_ID=4&Topic_Title=Neue+Deutsche+Usergroup&Forum_Title=German ] (sorry, it’s German) where customer set up a newsgroup and complained in a group with success. Anyway, I suggest to start from scratch if you are not satisfied with the NCS. Make you position clear. Tell the old NSC they are not capable and tell the new NSC they will get their money when they have done their job well. Regards Walter P.S.: Anybody out there who khows about other “customer Navision newsgroups”? Links, etc. welcome.

Thank you for all the contributions to this topic. The responses, both on and off-line, have certainly made me more confident of our legal position and how to deal with the problem.

This is a “just for the record” response. I can only speak specifically to the Navision U.S. Upgrade Agreement. It does say “Upgrade means bug fixes, modifications and new releases of the product…”. I interpret that as software only. It also says it is “…the sole responsibility of the Customer to … Install and implement the Upgrades…”. I interpret that as excluding any upgrade services as being included in the Upgrade Agreement. I believe my earlier comments regarding possible misunderstanding were correct. Dave Studebaker das@libertyforever.com Liberty Grove Software A Navision Services Partner

quote:


Originally posted by daves: This is a “just for the record” response. I can only speak specifically to the Navision U.S. Upgrade Agreement. It does say “Upgrade means bug fixes, modifications and new releases of the product…”. I interpret that as software only. It also says it is “…the sole responsibility of the Customer to … Install and implement the Upgrades…”. I interpret that as excluding any upgrade services as being included in the Upgrade Agreement. I believe my earlier comments regarding possible misunderstanding were correct.


I, too, would agree with Dave’s comments. The upgrade agreements are specifically for the software only, merging the customer’s version into the new version/improvement, and writing the customized data conversion routines. It does NOT include NSC services like going onsite for installation of the upgrade and performing the data conversions, unless specified and agreed upon by a customer and NSC specific agreement. Regards! Kristopher Webb Kelar Corporation, Canada

Hi Apologies for coming late to the discussion, but I rarely venture into the Sales & Pre-Sales forum. Paul you comment that you want to get away from your lemon of a system where you cannot produce an inventory valuation by item that agrees to the G/L, or get an IntraStat or VAT report, or age receivables correctly. Recently we undertook a project for a customer on 2.01 where they were not pleased with the current NSC they had. The support fees were high, with the modification support being twice the standard support fee. They were also unaware that they could upgrade. They required an NSC and they were put our way (amongst others I presume). The first work we undertook was a modification evaluation, from business process and development perspectives, so we knew what had been done, and why. We then sat down with the end customer to reaffirm our understanding. It transpired that around 75% of the modifications they had originally done for them were not being used (they were being charged for them of course), or they did not know existed. (Staff turnover and a lack of willingness to pay the past NSC for training had helped develop this position). The major issue they had was the reconciliation of the inventory valuation to the GL - and we have worked with them closely on this, and found that on many occassions the problems were being caused by themselves, and we have set in motion a culture of change. I think that I may be rambling on a bit here, but what I am trying to say is that you can reconcile on a basic level in 2.01 correctly, and now the changes are in place they can see the reconciliation process beginning to come together. We could have upgraded them to 3.10 but they would still have had the same problems. None of this maybe applicable, but they are reporting VAT correctly (they do not use Intrastat or Currency, and I am not sure but the Landed Cost module would have been solely developped by your NSC). So if you can, investigate your problems in 2.01, because the liklelihood is you will upgrade and the problems will still exist. On the question of the upgrade charge, our support fees for the modifications include the transposing them into future versions, but if the end client requires us to run the upgrade, additional modules, data conversion (outside the normal upgrade process) or training on additional functionality this would be charged for. I presume many NSC’s take a similar approach, but naturally each one has the right to be different and this should be reflected in any contract you have with them. Gone on long enough so all I should say is good luck! Steve