Hi everyone, Just wanted to get your opinion on the worlwide version of Attain. I have just got the final word from Navision US and according to them WW is only a base for localization and should not be sold and they (and noone else) supports worldwide … The reason I thought I needed their help is because I am trying to get some more info on WW like hotfixes, upgrade toolkits, the usual stuff that you get for US (or any other local version). I used to think that WW would be the starting point for multinational implementations. But then I just started with a client that has US and french offices. We started with an US db (but it might as well be WW) and then I implemented the french changes. The french specific objects are in the 10800 range. Silly me I put them in there and then just asked Navision to put on the license the french range. But they said they cannot sell that range so I have to move it to 50000 range. After a lot of debate I had to … And booooooooyyyyyy was it fun renumbering objects From what I understand the reason for not selling the 10800 range was because of the question of which country would get the revenue. So in my case it was only one other country but it would be a nightmare to renumber, move objects in 50000 range for more countries. So what is the point of multilanguage if it is so hard to use it in more than one country!!! A very frustrated Navision programmer … Cristi Nicola
Cristi, The reason for having a world wide (as I see it) is to have a foundation to base your international multi-site/multi-server implementation on. And the multilanguage issues are really often a minor issue here. It sounds to me as you’re trying to stuff everything into ONE database. Are you also running it as one company? If not, then a better choice would perhaps have been to have three databases. A world wide implementation/developement database (created with both the US English and French text layeers), a US and a French databaes. You would get a few issues updating, but not many. A more overseen problem here is that it’s not always that you can just use the same database here, unless they are two completely alike companies. If the French company is not owned 100% by the US (or vice versa) then they must purchase two separate licenses from Microsoft Business Solutions (otherwise the subsidiary granule can be used). Best regards, Erik P. Ernst, webmaster
Hi Erik, Yes you are right I was trying to put them all one database. But they will be using different companies. Now your suggestion to use one development db in WW and then separate version for each countries is I think not a bad idea. But it also brings me back to the reason I was upset about this. The are not very good providing information about WW. When I search through say Navision US Partner Network I was only able to find version 3.01 and not 3.10 and also only Hotfix 2 for 3.01 even though there were at least 4. I actually got all of them from someone here on Navision.Net before I found someone at Navision US that had them too … And while some of these issues may be just the fault of Navision US for instance there was a bug with Cash applications in WW that was not mentioned in any of the hotfixes I could find. The way I found out about it was because the same bug was in the UK version and for one of our clients we had a UK partner NSC who mentioned it … Or for instance there is a permissions problem on Service Management in 3.01 WW that is not an issue in US or GB but it is not mentioned in the hotfixes at least as a bug. So as you can see to find out info that is readily available for localized version I needed to jump through loops, call 10000 people and look in the hotfixes for US,WW and GB to make sure that did not miss anything. And even then the one about service management we found when we replaced the evaluation license that expired with a regular one… So then I would feel very insecure about using WW as the base for development. Regards, Cristi
Hello all, working with multiple companies in different countries I have an implementation based on the WW version. It is of course heavily customized to handle US, GB, NL, DK and SE business, but it works. A question: What is the “subsidiary granule”? Have never heard of it. Best regards, Pelle Lunden, Sweden
quote:
Originally posted by pelle: A question: What is the “subsidiary granule”? Have never heard of it.
I found it here, and it actually showed me wrong. You only have to own more than 50% - not 100%!
quote:
This granule grants you the right to provide your subsidiaries with electronic access to your solution. The grant of access only includes subsidiaries of which your ownership exceeds 50%. If you want to grant three subsidiaries access, you will need three Subsidiary granules. This feature is often selected if the customer has several subsidiaries and accepts the condition of having one installation, one database and one license. All the functionality and the total sum of users required for all entities must be configured to this license. This feature does not grant access for legal entities or subsidiaries of which your ownership is less than 50%.
If you then say that you could simply use the additional company, then yes, you’re right - except that you are violating the licensing rules. Here is what they write about the company granule:
quote:
If you want to have more than one company in the same Navision Attain database, you will need one or more of these granules. This granule adds an account to the first company included in the Basic General Ledger granule. If you want three companies, you will need two Company granules. This feature is often selected if the customer is bookkeeping for several legal entities or subsidiaries and for accountants who are bookkeeping for their clients. This feature does not grant access for several legal entities or subsidiaries to access the solution.
Best regards, Erik P. Ernst, webmaster
Thank you, Erik, this is interesting, as I have never heard of it from my NSC. Most of my companies are real (100% owned subsidiaries), one is a consolidating “mock up” company, and one is a holding company, just handling the group return. Are we violating licence rules? I don’t think so. Pelle
quote:
Originally posted by cnicola: I used to think that WW would be the starting point for multinational implementations.
Cristi, I’m currently working on a project for a Swiss Navision customer and his Italian subsidiary. I can confirm that my experience matches one-to-one yours. In our case I took the Swiss 3.10A as base and wanted to implement the italian nationalizations. No chance as all italian objects are stored in number range 12000 which I cannot access with my Swiss developer license. Navision Switzerland could not help either. A colleague of mine wanted to sell the same business solution to companies in 5 countries (Switzerland, Italy, Germany, France and the USA). In fact he had to take the five national DB’s and implement his customizations to all five DB’s. Whenever he has to do a change, he has to implement it in all five DB’s as well!! Navision really sucks if it’s about Internationality! (And there were moments I wished Sven Gustavsson back.) Hopefully this will become better under Microsofts regime. With best regards from Switzerland Marcus Fabian
quote:
Originally posted by pelle: this is interesting, as I have never heard of it from my NSC.
It’s been around for 2 years or so - and it’s international. The reason to introduce this granule was that most companies were using it like you describe, only by just buying the Company granule. But if you were looking in the license agreement - even before the subsidiary granule - then the company granule has only been to support accountant or other service companies - not neither fully or partly own subsidiaries. So they introduced the Subsidiary license - although I’m not surprised that so many companies haven’t heard about it (and firmly believes that they are using the software correctly), because most of the time, then the NSC’s doesn’t even know about the subsidiary granule (although it’s listed in all price/granule lists from Navision).
quote:
Originally posted by pelle: Most of my companies are real (100% owned subsidiaries), one is a consolidating “mock up” company, and one is a holding company, just handling the group return. Are we violating licence rules? I don’t think so.
I think you are violating the licence rules - even if you don’t know it. The “test” is: Do the employees of the subsidiaries access the system directly or is it only the employees of the holding company? If they access the system, then you need the subsidiary. Otherwise you can stick to the way you have it now. And even more - if you didn’t own all the subsidiary companies 50% or more, then you would have to buy a completly new license - even if you keept runing them in the same database. Best regards, Erik P. Ernst, webmaster
Hmm… Can they make this anymore confusing? I wonder how many subsidiary granule the NSCs sold to this date.
What’s the confusing part? Best regards, Erik P. Ernst, webmaster
Cristi, I actually talked a highly experienced International NSC today. They actually said the exact same things as you - and that was normally their prime reason for recommending Axapta and NOT Attain. In the short run for a large international project Attain would be cheaper - but in long run (when starting to upgrade and implement fixes/patches) then Axapta would soon be cheaper. AND Axapta does not have any Subsidiary granules or alike. You can just use for as many users you have paid for - not thinkink of what subsidiary they work for. Best regards, Erik P. Ernst, webmaster
quote:
Originally posted by pelle: Are we violating licence rules? I don’t think so.
Yes you are violating the licence rules. You do need in fact to pay for each company as Erik mentions. Many years ago we had the “Multiple Database” granule, now with Citrix, this is the equivilent. The rule is basically an honor system though, and I do not know if anyone actually pays for the granule. As for copying the French 10800 objects and renumbering them, well that is pretty cut and dry. You are copying software and then selling it. That’s about as illegal as you can get. Go to Jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go. _________________________ David Singleton Navision Consultant since 1991 dmks22@comcast.net___________
Hi Erik, Thanks for your comments. Acually Wendy’s answer was exactly the same: that we should sell Axapta for this kind of situation. So I guess I will have to start looking into it more seriously Also, David, now that you mention it, I think you are right it was kinda of stealing since we only paid for the new object ranges. But first, there is no rule about not reusing code from Navision, in fact I remember you telling us that is the first thing you have to think about: where does Navision do what I need to do. And second it was done with the knowledge of Navision US so at least I would not be alone in jail Anyway thanks everybody for listening to me venting about this. Cristi
Cristi, I don’t think that anyone seriously would think about actually accussing your for “stealing”. The fact that you tried to get Navision to license you the granules first is “prove” enough for me… 
I think that everyone would do it the same way - it’s just a petty that Navision doesn’t have a real solution for the international installations with Attain!! This should have to be the only reason for selecting Axapta, when there are so many reasons for staying at Attain! (Navision/MBS should listen and reply to this! 
). But thanks to you for bringing up the issue. It’s a interesting subject. Best regards, Erik P. Ernst, webmaster