What is requaird to be an navision reseller.

soni_al

What is needed to be a navision reseller, what exams is needed to complete the staff of the company that make the implementation.
Which is the minimum number of persons that is requird for each exam.

Thanks in Advance

Savatage

http://www.microsoft.com/dynamics/en/us ... ecome.aspx

David_Singleton

soni_al wrote:

What is needed to be a navision reseller, ...

You need a business plan that shows how you will generate leads and close them. The plan should show that you can make a solid profit by HONEST selling and providing good quality services by high end people, and that of course means allowing for a solid base of technical expertise including a plan on how you will recruit and train skilled Navision personnel.

You need to have the ability to know when a client is wrong and the guts to say no to them when it is in their best interests.

You need to understand business process re-engineering, to know when you should modify Navision to meet the clients need, when the customer should change their process to work with Navision, and when the process adds no value to the company and should be scrapped all together.

You need to have strong project management skills.

You need consultants with strong training and analysis skills that cna make sure you implement what the client wants.

You need sales people that are know how to sell a project, rather than selling boxes. They need to be people that want to see a successful implementation, not those that want ot hit quarterly sales targets.

You need to be able to set clear expectations so that when your client goes live, they get what they expected, when they expected it for the price they expected to pay.

You need financial backing. You can not expect to start making a profit from day one. Training and recruitment costs alone are going to be a lot, let alone the lead time to close your first 3 - 5 sales that you need to get things moving, and you need to pay salaries until you reach break even.

There is a lot more, but these are the key things I can think of I am sure other will add more to this list.


By the way, forget about programming for now. Programming is a very trivial part of a Navision implementation, concentrate first on the important stuff, and keep development at an absolute minimum. If you do need any development done just out source it until you get the important stuff sorted out.

As to certifications etc. worry about those also after you have all the important stuff sorted out.

soni_al

After the exams are complite, why is needed custumer reference, to get licence to implement Ms Nav. Where to buy the full version of Ms Nav to implement to get this reference, directly by Microsoft or to any Microsoft Navision Partner.

kriki

[Topic moved from 'NAV 2009' forum to 'NAV/Navision' forum]

generic

David Singleton wrote:

soni_al wrote:

What is needed to be a navision reseller, ...

By the way, forget about programming for now. Programming is a very trivial part of a Navision implementation, concentrate first on the important stuff, and keep development at an absolute minimum. If you do need any development done just out source it until you get the important stuff sorted out.

I would say that the majority of projects fail is because of bad programming.
Or underestimating the complexity of programming.
You mentioned yourself that you spent majority of the time fixing shitty screwed up modifications.
Programming is not always trivial.

Alex_Chow

I would say, most of the time, projects fail because of poor design that results in poor programming.

David_Singleton

Alex Chow wrote:

I would say, most of the time, projects fail because of poor design that results in poor programming.

I would agree with that 100%. :thumbsup:

Its FAR more important to have good analysis project management and design than good programmers. If the design is good then the programming will be good.

David_Singleton

generic wrote:

You mentioned yourself that you spent majority of the time fixing shitty screwed up modifications.

Where did I mention that? :-k

generic

David Singleton wrote:

generic wrote:

You mentioned yourself that you spent majority of the time fixing shitty screwed up modifications.

Where did I mention that? :-k

In one of your post I read.

David_Singleton

I suppose I can sort of understand why you made this incorrect inference. Generally when I am called in to fix a bad Navision implementation I do see a lot of bad code. But very little of it is "badly written code" (of course some is). The vast majority is code that just should not have been there in the first place. Generally because a "consultant" felt it was just easier to write some code to pacify the client than to understand the proper need and do it properly. In fact I have billed less than 40 hours of programming time this entire year, and I have only done that much because I agreed to help out to write some XML ports. Otherwise most of the programming I do looks something like:

//>> Start - Unnecessary modification removed
//
//
//<< End - Unnecessary modification removed

Partners (especially new ones) spend far to much of the project budget on programming than they should. More should be spent on training to have the client understand how to use Navision.

I am not saying that you should not program solutions for clients, and generally most Navision implementations will have a lot of modifications, but every modification needs to be thought out and designed correctly before it is given to a developer.

generic

David Singleton wrote:

Alex Chow wrote:

I would say, most of the time, projects fail because of poor design that results in poor programming.

I would agree with that 100%. :thumbsup:

Its FAR more important to have good analysis project management and design than good programmers. If the design is good then the programming will be good.

Define a good design.

No matter how well you design, you'll still get shitty programming done.

jversusj

David Singleton wrote:

If the design is good then the programming will be good.

i disagree with this statement. you can have a fantastic design and outsource the code to blockheads that fail to follow best practices and end up with a functional product that is horribly inefficient (poor server calls or extraneous code blocks/loops, missing validates with unnecessary manual re-coding of validation logic). sure, it will work, but it will be ugly behind the scenes.

i say this as a recovering blockhead (i did some awful stuff when i first was learning my job, luckily it was all reports and not core system functionality).

David_Singleton

generic wrote:

Define a good design.

No matter how well you design, you'll still get shitty programming done.

Of course that will happen, but the design is the most important first step, since you can then test the resulting code against the design to see if it meets the needs.

But most important is to be sure that the mod is actually needed. I often comment that I save clients a lot of money on development and programming costs. Not because I program better, but because I eliminate a lot of the unnecessary mods.

David_Singleton

jversusj wrote:

David Singleton wrote:

If the design is good then the programming will be good.

i disagree with this statement. you can have a fantastic design and outsource the code to blockheads that fail to follow best practices and end up with a functional product that is horribly inefficient (poor server calls or extraneous code blocks/loops, missing validates with unnecessary manual re-coding of validation logic). sure, it will work, but it will be ugly behind the scenes.

i say this as a recovering blockhead (i did some awful stuff when i first was learning my job, luckily it was all reports and not core system functionality).

Yes sorry I am in a hurry to get out the door and wrote that wrongly. It should have read:

David Singleton wrote:

If the design is bad then the programming will be bad

generic

David Singleton wrote:

The vast majority is code that just should not have been there in the first place. Generally because a "consultant" felt it was just easier to write some code to pacify the client than to understand the proper need and do it properly.

A "consultant" shouldn't be writing code. Most of the code I've fixed were written by "consultant" that have 5-10 years of experience and have self thought themselves programming.

generic

David Singleton wrote:

If the design is bad then the programming will be bad

The Programmer responsibility is to identify bad design and challenge the person who had done the design, if they are not doing that, then they are not doing their job.

I see a lot of people view programmers as monkeys who are given a design and they suppose to type it.

Alex_Chow

Paraphrasing from Sun Tzu's Art of War:
If a command is given and it is not clear and it's not carried out properly, it's the commander's fault.
If a command is given and it is clear and it's not carried out properly, then it's the soldier fault.

So I guess in the world of Navision, it can be rephrased as:
If a design is given and it is not clear and it's not carried out properly, it's the consultant's fault.
If a design is given and it is clear and it's not carried out properly, then it's the programmer's fault.

Of course, you can always argue what "clear" means. But I equate that to: "do you fully understand what is required?" Yes/No.

In times of war in Sun Tzu's time, it's punishable by death... I don't know what market rate for the punishment in the world of Navision is.

generic

Here is a clear requirement.

Increase the Item No. and everywhere it is referenced to 80 characters.


You whole Logic Alex goes down the drain.

Alex_Chow

generic wrote:

Here is a clear requirement.

Increase the Item No. and everywhere it is referenced to 80 characters.


You whole Logic Alex goes down the drain.

What's unclear about that? :-k

If it's part of the customer requirement, and the programmer understands what needs to be done and what is involved, why does the logic go down the drain?

generic

because It's like asking and I'm quoting David here.

It like someone asking for to stick their head in a fire

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=36299


Just because something is clear doesn't mean that you should do it.

Alex_Chow

Hence:

and the programmer understands what needs to be done and what is involved

Increasing the length of field can be done and has been done. .
http://dynamicsuser.net/blogs/singleton ... ision.aspx

Check out the comments.

generic

Yes, and if you read the blog, he basically says that it is like entering your head into fire.

Alex_Chow

generic wrote:

Yes, and if you read the blog, he basically says that it is like entering your head into fire.

I understand, but what was unclear about:

Increase the Item No. and everywhere it is referenced to 80 characters.

generic

generic wrote:

Just because something is clear doesn't mean that you should do it.

matttrax

Just because something is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't do it either. (I know, double negatives are confusing). The example may be a pain to do, but might be a legitimate request.

Savatage

I think we're going a bit off topic here

idiot

Quote Bill Gates : "...640K ought to be enough for anybody..."
Everything is relative & changes with time.
If all softwares out there supports 100 char Item No. & the customer requires that in his business, with the refusal & insistence to have Nav remain with 30 char Item No.,the whole situation reverses. The consultant's head would probably self detonate without need for fire.

idiot

Alex Chow wrote:

Paraphrasing from Sun Tzu's Art of War:
If a command is given and it is not clear and it's not carried out properly, it's the commander's fault.
If a command is given and it is clear and it's not carried out properly, then it's the soldier fault.

So I guess in the world of Navision, it can be rephrased as:
If a design is given and it is not clear and it's not carried out properly, it's the consultant's fault.
If a design is given and it is clear and it's not carried out properly, then it's the programmer's fault.

Of course, you can always argue what "clear" means. But I equate that to: "do you fully understand what is required?" Yes/No.

In times of war in Sun Tzu's time, it's punishable by death... I don't know what market rate for the punishment in the world of Navision is.

There was an extension of what you quoted, I forgot by whom. It goes something along the line like:
If a command is given and it is not clear and the soldier didn't clarify & assumed, then it's the soldier fault.

generic

idiot wrote:

Quote Bill Gates : "...640K ought to be enough for anybody..."
Everything is relative & changes with time.
If all softwares out there supports 100 char Item No. & the customer requires that in his business, with the refusal & insistence to have Nav remain with 30 char Item No.,the whole situation reverses. The consultant's head would probably self detonate without need for fire.

If all softwares out there supports 100 char Item No. then MS would increase it in the base product.