NAV 2009 vs. AX 2009

couberpu

Can we compare these two MS products?
Pros & Cons?

Our comapny is using NAV 3.60 with 3.70b runtime, SQL 2003 and our new IT director is looking to move over to AX 2009.
Smart move?


Thanks,
CouberPu

ara3n

what is the reason to move to AX 2009?


I hear a lot in US that MS sales/lead people are pushing prospect and existing clients to AX. The main reason is that they get better bonus if they sell AX and not NAV.

I was shocked to hear that MS Sales guys was telling a prospect that you cannot customize NAV and you can only integrate with it using webservice.
We had to disprove him and it's just sad.

couberpu

ara3n wrote:

what is the reason to move to AX 2009?


I hear a lot in US that MS sales/lead people are pushing prospect and existing clients to AX. The main reason is that they get better bonus if they sell AX and not NAV.

I was shocked to hear that MS Sales guys was telling a prospect that you cannot customize NAV and you can only integrate with it using webservice.
We had to disprove him and it's just sad.

Thanks for the reply!
We had it for 7 years and since MS is cutting the 3.6 support totally this year and it force us to reevaluate our current position and move on to a newer application! :oops: :oops:
Is AX more complicated than NAV?
Does AX fits better in warehousing/shipping/transfer/cross-dock shipping than NAV?

Couber

davmac1

You can do all of that in Navision.
If this is going to be a logical as opoosed to political decision, your company should look at the upgrade costs associated with each product, what would be lost with a move to AX 2009, what features needed by the company that are not in base NAV and the cost of customizing, and similarly for AX 2009.
Sometimes decisions are political and the strongest politician wins, which is why some corporate IT is such a mess!

couberpu

davmac1 wrote:

You can do all of that in Navision.
If this is going to be a logical as opoosed to political decision, your company should look at the upgrade costs associated with each product, what would be lost with a move to AX 2009, what features needed by the company that are not in base NAV and the cost of customizing, and similarly for AX 2009.
Sometimes decisions are political and the strongest politician wins, which is why some corporate IT is such a mess!

:whistle: :whistle: :whistle: =; =; =; =; [-X [-X [-X

I selected navision 8 years ago! So I can not comment on that! :oops:
Actually, we did not know better at the time we purchased NAV 3.60. After we installed navision 3.60, we start to modify it to make it looked and feeled like our old application, which I help created but not my decision to make the modification. I did learn a lot from "breaking" navision but the modifications stopped us from move ahead as newer enhancement came out. The company are more than twice the size now and we are at a point to need a better system. The new IT director, hired 8 month ago, need something "better" and decided not to use Navision and contacted AX, SAP and Oracle.
I am asking this question is more for myself, are they any better for $100M/100 users/3 sites system than NAV 2009?

Couber

ara3n

You can read this blog on implementation of AX vs. NAV.

http://dynamicsuser.net/blogs/adamroue/ ... art-i.aspx


As for performance AX can definitely handle larger clients better than NAV. It is a much bigger ERP system and learning it will probably easier to migrate to compared to SAP or oracle.

As for features that you have customized, I suggest to contact a AX partner that can give you estimate on implementing those modifications.

couberpu

Rashed,

Thanks for the link.
So AX would require more resource to implement and our company would need hire more pros if we want to do most of the work in house. (to save money also) ](*,) ](*,)

CouberPu

ara3n

With any of the products SAP, Oracle, AX you will need more people to implement and the projects are much bigger.
Doing your own modification by yourself will be harder. Those 1st tier ERP systems are much bigger and require years of experience and most people just specialize in one area because they are too big to learn the whole product.

David_Singleton

Hi Couber,

I think you are in an impossible situation. You know that NAV 2009 is the right product for the company. So you are looking for technical reasons to move from 3.60 to 2009. The performance issues relate mostly to SQL 2000 and the bad customizations in the system that just need to be thrown out.

But you can't win a political battle with facts, the world just does not work like that. no matter what you come up with the person selling SAP or AX will have much more reason to push the change. Financially right now Microsoft are doing great deals on getting old customers back on support, so that is a Chanel you should look at.

The argument right now is that all the 3.60 mods need to be thrown out and start again. The data is best not to convert, just master tables and opening balances, the license cost will be the same for NAV, AX or SAP so training is the only thing keeping NAV in the picture, and if you go to the new Role Tailored Client then the users need to be retrained anyway (not true, but the AX and SAP people will make that argument).

In reality the only argument you can use is to look at the original budget for NAV 3.60 and compare it to what you actually paid, and then get the fact through that the same will happen with AX and SAP that the costs will explode. And then work on the aspect that it better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

David_Singleton

ara3n wrote:

...Those 1st tier ERP systems are much bigger and require years of experience and most people just specialize in one area because they are too big to learn the whole product.

This is treading on thin ice though. Couber can use the argument "I have 8 years experience with Navision, am a certified NAV developer I know where all the skeletons are and can fix everything in house", but that can also be interpreted as "AH so if we switch products then we can reduce costs by not having to keep Couber on board".

ara3n

They still will need somebody else to administer the system, and that person has to learn their business.

David_Singleton

ara3n wrote:

They still will need somebody else to administer the system, and that person has to learn their business.

That would be a hard sell.

couberpu

David,

How's family?

Regardless which system the new COO and new IT director picked, I need to help the company move the data over. When I moved the data from our old system to navision 8 years ago, I only moved the master table and balance, we also spend one weekend overtime to re-key all the open orders into navision by hand.
So this is another question, is it easy to transfer the data over?

** I have technet and I can do a test run, but just need reinsurance! :oops: :oops:

Thanks,
Couber

couberpu

ara3n wrote:

They still will need somebody else to administer the system, and that person has to learn their business.

Rashed,

The owner of the company does not like the fact that there is only one person knows the system, for the old system I created and navision. He is buying the idea that David mentioned and there is nothing I can do about it, as a good person.
I am not sure if I can argue about what NAV 2009 can do would change the new rule of the game.
I ask the question to put my mind at easy, to know that I did help the company grow to what we have today. And to get ready for the new challenge, if the rule got changed again and they need to keep me to maintain the NEW system. :!: :!:

Thanks,
CouberPu

couberpu

Ok, the scope just getting bigger.
Can we compare NAV to AX, NAV to SAP, NAV to Oracle, AX to Oracle, AX to SAP?

CouberPu

DenSter

Hi Couber, still not decided where it's going next huh

Your users have grown used to getting their requirements implemented fairly quickly, and extremely cheaply. Just try to imagine how much money it would have cost if all these customizations were done by a VAR. I think one thing is VERY important here and that is the ease with which your system can be customized, and the fact that you are an inside person that is capable of doing all of it. I really don't think that any system other than NAV can provide that.

Switching to another system would make it so that the system would not be that easy to customize. Compared to NAV, AX and SAP are very difficult to customize, and would almost by definition have to be done by the VAR. Frankly, I think that the cost that this is going to bring to the table is being underestimated in a very big way, this is going to add HUGE cost going forward. For whatever is possible to be done in-house (to whatever limits other systems allow you to customize), there would have to be a significant investment to get someone trained. Personally, having some knowledge of your situation, I think it would be a huge mistake to switch away from NAV.

generic

Ask for quote for each ERP system and then compare what it would take to implement.

couberpu

DenSter wrote:

Hi Couber, still not decided where it's going next huh

Your users have grown used to getting their requirements implemented fairly quickly, and extremely cheaply. Just try to imagine how much money it would have cost if all these customizations were done by a VAR. I think one thing is VERY important here and that is the ease with which your system can be customized, and the fact that you are an inside person that is capable of doing all of it. I really don't think that any system other than NAV can provide that.

Switching to another system would make it so that the system would not be that easy to customize. Compared to NAV, AX and SAP are very difficult to customize, and would almost by definition have to be done by the VAR. Frankly, I think that the cost that this is going to bring to the table is being underestimated in a very big way, this is going to add HUGE cost going forward. For whatever is possible to be done in-house (to whatever limits other systems allow you to customize), there would have to be a significant investment to get someone trained. Personally, having some knowledge of your situation, I think it would be a huge mistake to switch away from NAV.

Hi Daniel,

How's the family!
Stephen is now 16 and still playing Hockey. We had a great time last summer travleing around the country playing Hockey.

I already knew where I am heading. It is company CEO that was confused! ](*,) ](*,)
Like David said, I am in a impossible position to argue with CEO/CFO/COO/IT Director. My mistake was to make all the requests possible and way too cheap for too long. But, I also see their points. For the past 11 years, our IT cost was less than 0.25% of company's revenue and they did not pay any support to outside VAR. But I do create a "hostage" worry as I did all the work, with some MVP help from the group. My mistake and I have to deal with it.
After hired the new COO last year, the play book got changed and someone has to take the blame. The worse part was the negative growth and hired a new IT director by COO. It is a long story ...

I am trying to get sense of if AX, Oracle or SAP would be a smart move so company still going to be around 2 years later. Do you have any tech. background/experience that you can share with me on dealing with AX, SAP or Oracle vs. NAV.

We just had AX people did a two day demo, based on the demo script created by bosses, and it was a disaster and makes me start asking the question! (The vendor selection process did not list NAV at all!)

Thanks,
Couber

couberpu

generic wrote:

Ask for quote for each ERP system and then compare what it would take to implement.

The money was not an issue, they got money!! HaHaHa...

David_Singleton

In the end the issue comes down to a/ which system is best for the company vs b/ which system the company will end up going with. This is a common issue that most companies have when deciding on a system.

To be honest most systems are very similar, and all will have different issues; but will have issues.

The key factor is that when purchasing a new system, companies tend to focus on problems they had with their old system. So lets say the executives keep hearing 5 hot issues with Navision, then those are the things they will ask form the new vendors. They will naturally assume that every thing that Navision does well the other systems do well also. So once hey go live they will start saying "Yes but in Navision we could do blah blah..." If they are going to switch systems, then they need to do a proper run through of the day in the life and be certain that the new system works exactly how they need, because other systems are not as flexible as Navision. (I should qualify this, since of course Axapta is even more flexible than Navision, but that additional flexibility comes at a much higher development cost. What you can program in house for $X might cost 10 times more if done in Axapta by a partner that does not fully understand the needs of the company).

In fact moving to a more structured development environment is a good thing. Add hock changes made over night are not the idea way to run things, but yes it is the cheapest way.

The best advise is to keep closely involved in the project, and DO NOT fight the other systems, don't be negative. Look openly at the advantages each system offers and produce a very objective comparison of the systems. if you fight it you will simply be moved aside to another project.

ara3n

what kind of issues do you have with current NAV.

You mentioned that you've done a lot of customization and it's not upgradeable?
What kind of customization have you done that are not upgradeable?

DenSter

David Singleton wrote:

The best advise is to keep closely involved in the project, and DO NOT fight the other systems, don't be negative. Look openly at the advantages each system offers and produce a very objective comparison of the systems. if you fight it you will simply be moved aside to another project.

That's the key, whatever system is selected, you have to embrace it and work with it.

And ultimately, you are right, it's the business requirement that should drive the system. Familiarity with the NAV development environment is just one aspect that goes on the 'pro' column (albeit a very important one in my opinion).

couberpu

Yes, I agree and not to be able to gain anything with fighting.
We still have two more demos to see and I actually like the idea of learning new systems as it would enhance my skill sets.

Actually, I did not make it clear. We could move to new releases. But the cost was too high. We have 4 divisions and each division runs its business a certain way. We modified the system to handle all 4 in objects. And we were off support 6 month after went live due to the cost of modify it. That's how I got the developer license. (never went to Navision school, too much $$).

I guess this is not going to give me any more information than I already knew and I am done complaining here.
I will get back to work. =D>

Couber

davmac1

You can at least be thankful they are looking at current more functional packages (even if much more expensive).
One company I worked for decided to "upgrade" from Navision to an old legacy Cobol system. When those geniuses got shoved aside, the new geniuses decided to go to Platinum for Windows!
I have been long gone, but stay in touch.
Great people - just not ERP savvy.

couberpu

davmac1 wrote:

You can at least be thankful they are looking at current more functional packages (even if much more expensive).
One company I worked for decided to "upgrade" from Navision to an old legacy Cobol system. When those geniuses got shoved aside, the new geniuses decided to go to Platinum for Windows!
I have been long gone, but stay in touch.
Great people - just not ERP savvy.

Davmac1,

I am not against the change at all. As a matter of fact, I like to have a more structured environment. It just that I was doing everything all by myself for so long and I need time to get out of the comfort zone. Yes, you are right that it is better to have a better and more functional package.
I did share my thouhgts with the management in the company and we are in agreement to be careful when making decisions.

Thanks,
Couber