Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- All Categories
- 73 General
- 73 Announcements
- 66.6K Microsoft Dynamics NAV
- 18.7K NAV Three Tier
- 38.4K NAV/Navision Classic Client
- 3.6K Navision Attain
- 2.4K Navision Financials
- 115 Navision DOS
- 854 Navision e-Commerce
- 1K NAV Tips & Tricks
- 772 NAV Dutch speaking only
- 615 NAV Courses, Exams & Certification
- 2K Microsoft Dynamics-Other
- 1.5K Dynamics AX
- 304 Dynamics CRM
- 109 Dynamics GP
- 10 Dynamics SL
- 1.5K Other
- 993 SQL General
- 384 SQL Performance
- 34 SQL Tips & Tricks
- 34 Design Patterns (General & Best Practices)
- Architectural Patterns
- 10 Design Patterns
- 5 Implementation Patterns
- 53 3rd Party Products, Services & Events
- 1.7K General
- 1.1K General Chat
- 1.6K Website
- 79 Testing
- 1.2K Download section
- 23 How Tos section
- 260 Feedback
- 12 NAV TechDays 2013 Sessions
- 13 NAV TechDays 2012 Sessions
Time to tell Microsoft what they MUST do to keep NAV alive
vgvozdev
Member Posts: 29
Hi,
Last 5 years Microsoft was solely concern with converting NAV to Role Tailored/Multi Tennant client and did not do anything (or almost nothing) about actually improving functionality. Unfortunately looks like this was very big mistake and I think and hope Microsoft have realized this by now. On US Directions Microsoft had mentioned that last year was ‘DISASTER’ for NAV. Surprising for them – maybe, but very expected for US.
1. Microsoft did not offer any additional functionality value in 2009 & 2013.
2. 2009 RTC was complete disaster – unusable
3. 2013 ISV rules were changed – now you we have to certify every add-on if we want sells it – otherwise we can compete on price.
4. Reporting Development is complete mess – we lost 100% IP put into report development and have to put 300% more than before to create new. I mean – 90% of customer’s value coming from reports and we just lost it.
As result Current Customers do not want upgrade, we know that it will not give them any value – and we will not push them. New purchases were postponed because of 2013 version and because we are not ready to release our ISV solution yet. I think it is the time for us to tell Microsoft what we need in a good way… Not as “Microsoft has gone barking mad” – but in real nice, calm, very constructive way.
I offer everyone to write “Open Letter” to Microsoft with everything what we need to keep NAV alive. Otherwise we will lose, customers will loose and Microsoft will lose – and nobody wants this. Please, send here your comments and I will summarize it later.
This is my few items:
1. Future development has to be focused on the improvements for NAV functionality. Just look at AX – Microsoft was investing mostly in the functionality and it is definitely paid off. I was shocked when I saw Roadmap for NAV on US Directions. Pretty much – no roadmap, nothing concrete, just bla bla bla. We need list of functionality that will be released in new versions. We are sitting here wandering what industries we should attack, what functionality move to 2013, what we should hold off. We have to spend thousands of hours moving staff to 2013 –will be very disappointing if we find out in 6 month that Microsoft has plans to develop functionality that we will spend time on now. We have limited resources and Microsoft has to recognize it and help us by as minimum sharing their plans. If you do not have any plans – let create it together and let’s make it fast.
2. New 2013 ISV rules has to be canceled, Object Based Price has to be removed. Microsoft – do you even realize what have you done??? No other system in your family has object based pricing. Development environment is 2-3 times cheaper for other systems. AX pricelist does not have any Development Granules – is it actually FREE? NEW ISV rules forcing people consider throwing out IP that was developed over years. Now if I am not sure that I will sell enough I will not move it to 2013 – on other side if I have free resources I would move it in and it would help me compete with other systems. ISV rules have to be completely different - LS Retail is real ISV product, LINKFresh is real ISV Product, JustFOOD is real ISV product. This products sell not because they in NAV they sell because companies spend hundreds of thousand hours in IP development. You should recognize it and you should let this people make more money per NAV user by giving them additional discount– this has to be there incentive to develop PRODUCT like this. If somebody sells LS Retain – they have to get there discount, LS Retail additional 20-25 and Microsoft gets remaining – something like this. LS Retail sells NAV, not other way around – Microsoft has to recognize it and support people who make such investments. Other ISV products have to be free for us. We spending a lot of time developing it, it helps us compete with other systems and win sales for NAV. Microsoft – please, do not be cheap, do not try to make additional 100K for Object Pricing – especially because you do not do this for any other your product. We will all win after all.
3. Microsoft has to remove 95% maintenance rule – as minimum for next few years. It is not our fault that customers do not want upgrade now. This is actually Microsoft fault – you did not provide enough value for customers to upgrade, you do not gave us proper tools to do upgrades fast, you make us postpone our ISV developments by releasing half-baked 2008 and 2013. Do not punish us for your shortcomings. You need to make now FLAT and HIGH discount to help us move customers to 2013 fast and help us with ISV investment.
Please, let me know if you agree or disagree and lets work together to move NAV forward.
Last 5 years Microsoft was solely concern with converting NAV to Role Tailored/Multi Tennant client and did not do anything (or almost nothing) about actually improving functionality. Unfortunately looks like this was very big mistake and I think and hope Microsoft have realized this by now. On US Directions Microsoft had mentioned that last year was ‘DISASTER’ for NAV. Surprising for them – maybe, but very expected for US.
1. Microsoft did not offer any additional functionality value in 2009 & 2013.
2. 2009 RTC was complete disaster – unusable
3. 2013 ISV rules were changed – now you we have to certify every add-on if we want sells it – otherwise we can compete on price.
4. Reporting Development is complete mess – we lost 100% IP put into report development and have to put 300% more than before to create new. I mean – 90% of customer’s value coming from reports and we just lost it.
As result Current Customers do not want upgrade, we know that it will not give them any value – and we will not push them. New purchases were postponed because of 2013 version and because we are not ready to release our ISV solution yet. I think it is the time for us to tell Microsoft what we need in a good way… Not as “Microsoft has gone barking mad” – but in real nice, calm, very constructive way.
I offer everyone to write “Open Letter” to Microsoft with everything what we need to keep NAV alive. Otherwise we will lose, customers will loose and Microsoft will lose – and nobody wants this. Please, send here your comments and I will summarize it later.
This is my few items:
1. Future development has to be focused on the improvements for NAV functionality. Just look at AX – Microsoft was investing mostly in the functionality and it is definitely paid off. I was shocked when I saw Roadmap for NAV on US Directions. Pretty much – no roadmap, nothing concrete, just bla bla bla. We need list of functionality that will be released in new versions. We are sitting here wandering what industries we should attack, what functionality move to 2013, what we should hold off. We have to spend thousands of hours moving staff to 2013 –will be very disappointing if we find out in 6 month that Microsoft has plans to develop functionality that we will spend time on now. We have limited resources and Microsoft has to recognize it and help us by as minimum sharing their plans. If you do not have any plans – let create it together and let’s make it fast.
2. New 2013 ISV rules has to be canceled, Object Based Price has to be removed. Microsoft – do you even realize what have you done??? No other system in your family has object based pricing. Development environment is 2-3 times cheaper for other systems. AX pricelist does not have any Development Granules – is it actually FREE? NEW ISV rules forcing people consider throwing out IP that was developed over years. Now if I am not sure that I will sell enough I will not move it to 2013 – on other side if I have free resources I would move it in and it would help me compete with other systems. ISV rules have to be completely different - LS Retail is real ISV product, LINKFresh is real ISV Product, JustFOOD is real ISV product. This products sell not because they in NAV they sell because companies spend hundreds of thousand hours in IP development. You should recognize it and you should let this people make more money per NAV user by giving them additional discount– this has to be there incentive to develop PRODUCT like this. If somebody sells LS Retain – they have to get there discount, LS Retail additional 20-25 and Microsoft gets remaining – something like this. LS Retail sells NAV, not other way around – Microsoft has to recognize it and support people who make such investments. Other ISV products have to be free for us. We spending a lot of time developing it, it helps us compete with other systems and win sales for NAV. Microsoft – please, do not be cheap, do not try to make additional 100K for Object Pricing – especially because you do not do this for any other your product. We will all win after all.
3. Microsoft has to remove 95% maintenance rule – as minimum for next few years. It is not our fault that customers do not want upgrade now. This is actually Microsoft fault – you did not provide enough value for customers to upgrade, you do not gave us proper tools to do upgrades fast, you make us postpone our ISV developments by releasing half-baked 2008 and 2013. Do not punish us for your shortcomings. You need to make now FLAT and HIGH discount to help us move customers to 2013 fast and help us with ISV investment.
Please, let me know if you agree or disagree and lets work together to move NAV forward.
0
Comments
Too bad it's now just a big giant Microsoft Kool-aide drinking conference.
The original purpose for Directions is gone, I think you can probably start another communicate to take its place.
AP Commerce, Inc. = where I work
Getting Started with Dynamics NAV 2013 Application Development = my book
Implementing Microsoft Dynamics NAV - 3rd Edition = my 2nd book
"As result Current Customers do not want upgrade, we know that it will not give them any value – and we will not push them."
I currently work on the customer side, and I am fairly sure must upgrade because when NAV2017 or whatever comes the 2009 Classic will lose support. This can mean two things.
One, it is not guaranteed to be able to run Classic Client on e.g. Win 9 or 10. This may be worked around by a server, RDP based env (we have that already) but again I am not sure current versions of the Windows servers will be installable in the future or later versions will support said client. This would be a disaster, basically from a certain timepoint you may not reinstall existing computers or buy new ones because you cannot run your ERP anymore.
Two, for example if the EU decides to rework say VAT from the ground up (because why can't we have the same VAT report format in every EU country, preferably electronically?) the application changes will not be released for 2009 Classic. Although downgrading is not really that hard, did it already, this clearly is not a way forward. Having to downgrade regulatory compliance is never a good strategy.
I am at the moment just learning and evaluating the RTC environment, I am not yet aware of all the major "traps" that make it hard to use. If you have a succint list of "traps", of "stuff I had known before upgrade I would have not done so" I would be thankful if you shared it with me!
My current view is that Pages are sort of OK as long as you don't need very specific UI although retraining users and making them accept it will be a major problem, and since 2011 I am making every important management report Excel Buffer based, so my No. 1 biggest headache will be Documents. Adding a Fax No. to the header took me 30 mins. Other "traps" have not found yet.
The question is more about what MS needs to do to make NAV soar and grow. Get back to basics and refocus NAV on its original core value proposition... A solid end-to-end ERP product (so continue to build out and extend functionality) that is highly/rapidly customizable (so don't implement changes that limit flexibility or drive customization costs higher) with powerful filtering/drilldown/etc. capabilities. All with a low-IT admin requirement.
Those were the values that drove NAV out of the 90s and into this century very successfully. The powerful filtering/drilldown/etc. features are still there (but could be improved in the RTC...I posted a small suggestion for that on Connect). The other areas have been brushed aside as MS pushes the product's technical threshold, while making decisions that limit customization (or increase the cost). The service tier administration tool was a nice feature added in NAV 2013 to improve the IT administration requirements over NAV 2009 (albeit more useful for partners than end users), but the product is still a far more complex beast to roll out and administer than it was in the pure classic days.
There are enough products out there that are not everly flexible and try for a "commoditized" approach (NetSuite, etc.) so it doesn't make sense to me to try to move NAV to position it against those. It's not where the product's greatest strengths lie. Guess we'll have to see Microsoft's direction after they give this approach a year or two to see if it's producing what they'd hoped...
http://www.epimatic.com
I would like to think it is partially us. This forum was extremely helpful for me and I hope I am sometimes helpful to others as well. AX has neither here nor on any other online forum this 200K posts we have. Nor other ERP vendors, my SAP friends really envy this culture of helping and sharing we have. It seems as if every ERP except NAV would only attract selfish people who only give advice for money... or maybe they just have too many NDA's to sign, dunno...
But in reality it is very clearly the add-ons. I have seen two kinds of succesful projects. One of them was so big that we (or others) practically built an add-on for them, just did not call it so. Khm, khm, sport shoes near Nürnberg if you catch my drift. Khm, khm, or that French company with the cutely named MONA and the GINA modules, won't say the name but those who worked on it will recognize. And then the second type used LS Retail or Lanham stuff or Megabau or or or...
http://www.epimatic.com
I concur. Especially with No.1. Please tell us where we are heading MS
2013 reworked all images. 2013 R2 reworked all images. I'm all for improvement, but maybe resources could be spent in other places than graphics.
In the mean time, we have to use third party tools to get "where used" function, which is still missing in our ancient Development Environment, along with version control. Come on....move us to Visual Studio OR upgrade the current IDE.
Open letter is fine, but maybe MS should just read/acknowledge these postings, as I suspect they do
Johannes Sebastian
MB7-840,MB7-841
This days are gone forever... Microsoft was investing in AX functionality last five years and it starting to pay off. Just look what they did for retail. I know just few project sold last year that will amount to 2-3 hundreds of thousand users. Yes it is big projects but it is already cheaper for 50+ user company to buy AX - just because of many different user types. In NAV - light user cant even create Sales Order.
And it is very funny - on there statement of direction for AX they state: "With Microsoft Dynamics AX we are focused on fulfilling the needs of companies across five industries - Manufacturing, Distribution, Retail, Services Organisation, Public Sector" If they do the same as they did for Retail for other industries - NAV will be out of luck completely. Actually what is remains?
But anyway - last year AX outsell NAV by big, big, number. And only because they was investing in the Functionality and not just technology behind it.
In NAV world they rely on the Channel to build vertical solution - but unfortunately it is getting more difficult and more expensive to build them and certify them.
Actually if you look back you will realize that they used NAV money to build AX. NAV was outselling AX for long time (and any other Dynamics system). But much more money was invested in AX development then NAV. Hopefully we can reverce this trend - but we need act now or NAV can become irrelevant.
Adaptive Business Solutions
http://justjewelrysoftware.com
Those days are gone.
It's a really good strategy by Microsoft to disrupt the dissonance voice that was Directions. First you infiltrate their ranks, then you lure then with money. Lastly, you shut them up and force feed kool-aide. I have not seen a better execution of this strategy in my life.
AP Commerce, Inc. = where I work
Getting Started with Dynamics NAV 2013 Application Development = my book
Implementing Microsoft Dynamics NAV - 3rd Edition = my 2nd book
I'm calling BS on this. Where did you get this data?
AP Commerce, Inc. = where I work
Getting Started with Dynamics NAV 2013 Application Development = my book
Implementing Microsoft Dynamics NAV - 3rd Edition = my 2nd book
Unfortunately or fortunately -this is true. In terms of Number of Users AX outsells NAV. It is few very big companies. As example - Russian Post Office - 10000 offices, Russian Olympic Commete - to support 2014 Olympic Games, couple of Car Manufacturers in Asia.
It is very strange math - maybe LS Retail sold 10000 stores also but Microsoft does not count it in there Stats - for them it is NOT NAV Sales. But if they sell 10000 stores with 5 users in AX - this is 50000 users. So from Microsoft Point of view AX sells more then NAV.
Adaptive Business Solutions
http://justjewelrysoftware.com
In Russia, there are no new projects , there are no normal localization since version 5, there are no MS experienced team to support Nav.
Nav, T-SQL.
Sorry to learn that NAV doesn't go in Russia. In such a vast country there should be plenty of room to do business.
Johannes Sebastian
MB7-840,MB7-841
In am from Hungary and in my experience Navision projects were always extremely difficult in Eastern Europe, finally I had to move abroad because there was a clear mismatch between the business culture and the software. Now more experienced I don't even try to implement Navision in our subsidiaries in Ukraine or Bulgaria, I just interface them to local software like 1C. Users in Ukraine love 1C.
The mismatch between the business culture of Eastern Europe and Navision is a bit difficult to really define, I spent a lot of hours thinking about it. I can identify three things. All are well exampled by the invoice proceess.
First of all in EE people often don't want the same things written on the invoice as on the sales order. Many customers want to be more creative for tax reasons or because their customers have these requests like invoice half of it to this company another half to that company but different product name etc. Users in EE are often surprised that an invoice in Navision is a "booking document" while they are used to something like a letter, very flexible, write anything you want.
So inflexibility is one thing that does not work in EE. In EE you must be able to do flexible things like purchase order 1000 pcs but receiver 1001, or 999 but still close the PO (can't do when using warehousing module), you must be able to ship product A but invoice product B etc. etc.
A second problem is accuracy. Western Europeans are more fault tolerant. In EE a boss often explodes if there is typo in an invoice address. Therefore we should be able to correct things for example preview an invoice before really booked, or correct after it is booked without having to credit it.
A third problem is user productivity. Our users in EE must write 100 or 200 invoices a day. Because we are poor, we cannot afford many employees. So if they have to credit 10 invoices a day due to a typo or something, they should not go through Navision's tedious credit memo process. It should be 1 button click.
A fourth problem is that all this is doable by customization but what I described above is 20 days at €400 a day (usualy rate in Hungary) which they cannot afford, or don't want to - there are many, many local accounting packages much much cheaper who can do this.
So I had to work in Western Europe, UK, now Austria, because there Navision works. Everybody is nice and calm. Typo in invoice address? No problem dear, people are people. But if you want to they can credit it, as they only make like 20 invoices a day, they have time. They credit 1 a day. They are not very happy about the Navision process to credit it, but once a day? It is OK. And for example an add-on I know, Megabau, has this one-click credit memo process and I think its invoicing module alone is just a few hundreds, so if they really want to be nice to their employees they just buy that. So Navision is meant for the calm, easy, nice, friendly, boring environments of Western Europe
For example I asked our Ukrainian subsidiary do you guys want to be able not modify an invoice once you printed it? They said aaaaaargh that would never work, they have crazy customers who want the same invoice changed 10 times until they are happy with it. So this alone decided they stay with 1C and I will not roll out Navision to them, just interface it, upload its most important data. (This is hard. 1C does not even have this order - shipment - invoice - pay process. It is more like there is an order, in that order payments and shipments. Invoices not even important. Weird.)
So we all have this choice to make in EE. Either work with Nav but live abroad. Or work with a local package that is flexible, user friendly, error tolerant, productive, cheap. Like 1C. All they lack is that huge, impressive brand name and with that the instant sales demo trust like Microsoft or SAP or Oracle.
Yep, THREE UI changes (and not just the Graphics) in as many releases is a clear sign of lack-of-direction, and also a sure sign that the Marketing people are running the asylum.
Hopefully, Ballmer's successor will actually HAVE a clue, or at least RENT one.
And don't even get me started on the fact that USERS now have more control over the UI than Application DEVELOPERS like us... I thought that "Monkey Boy" Ballmer became (in)famous for his chant of "Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers!"
Guess not.
It is a sad state of affairs that I actually got EXCITED to discover that 2013 R2 FINALLY fixed that horrible, embarassing excuse for vertical "scrolling" in the Object Designer Object list. But, AFAICT, that was the ONLY *IMPROVEMENT* (other than the LONG-OVERDUE "Help Server" concept) that I can find in 2013 R2, period.
In my opinion these points can be a great value in little companies, but working with 50+ user industries collides heavily with the underlined features: as far as I experienced, administrative managers and auditors feel enthusiast when they can use a tool which, if properly set up, can really leave them control and oversight of what's happening in their branch with no way to "bury under sand" typo and behaviors at limits of the law.
Maybe I'm just misguided since the branches we have in Hungary, Bulgary, Czech Republic and Romania running NAV all have the holding company in Italy.
So, in Russia a small client buys 1C because it very cheap and meet his requirements, big-sized clent buys Axapta, SAP, Oralce etc.., does middle-sized client will choice Nav? I think no - because local functionality doesn't supported by MS in fact.
Nav, T-SQL.
Lack of business knowledge? I am a Bachelor of Business Administration. So I for example know this is only illegal if it is an import, otherwise customs is not even involved. And there are third cases when it is a gray zone - if you import half a million cheap pens from China nobody will count it so while you should be receiving exact quantity everybody understands why you don't.
Most stuff I mentioned is not actually illegal, and some of the stuff I mentioned is so obviously illegal "invoice half of it to my other company under a different product name" - that there is nothing to prove wrong: they KNOW it is illegal, it is their business, their choice, usually they are forced by their own customer. I am not responsible for what they can. We customize software, are not tax auditors, we point out if they want flexibility for illegal things but not our job to enforce it.
Having said that the illegal kinds of flexibility is only a small part of this.
This is a very good logic, my problem was always how to scale NAV DOWN not up (Thanks Mark Brummel for the Mini info). As I typically had more small customers. But let me take your logic a step further. You can have 100 users doing the same thing, as you can have a very modern, very official, very Western type business where all your company does nothing else but sells for example machine parts. And there is a process for everything.
And then there are those business in EE which can be big, but are entrepreneurs, not enterprises. They have 30 departments with 3 people each depending on what business ideas, contacts, or projects the business owner has. Each mini department will have their own processes or more like no processes, and the whole thing is extended entrepreneurship, not enterprise. Each mini department needs 10 days of consulting then you find out the project is much much over budget.
So this was actually my first really bitter lesson that you need to be an enterprise, not a big entrepreneur, to use an ERP.
The difference is that in the enterprise there are processes, in a big entrepreneur there are just 200 people helping 1 person to make decisions, ad-hoc.
I actually find business often easier to implemement with NAV because they have processes and in a way this is lower complexity.
What big business want from NAV which stuff like 1C cannot provide IMHO is not complexity but reliability. So they have stuff like an IT department, they have an IT strategy, they have all these enterprise things and NAV or SAP fits well into that. They just don't crash they can be planned, managed, you know they will work with Windows 9. It is this kind of long term reliability and planned strategy important for the big business. For the small business the important thing is I press this button, it fills out some paperwork automatically, I saved 2 hours.
Thanks Mark, is it documented or just try it? What I have seen so far that was OK as a skeleton global functionality, but to compete in this 75% of it must be local, not just localized to the letter of the law but really being localized to whatever paperwork small businesses in a given place really like.
I know that 1C killed NAV in Russia and I guess it is mowing west into Europe. It has over 1 million customers in Russia, Asia and Eastern Europe. So what made it Successful?
1. I think 1C has very good development environment:
- 2&3 Tier Architecture;
- Web Client, Regular Client, Lite Client;
- Application can compile for Windows, Ipad, and Android;
- Build In Workflow Management & Execution;
- Support for Distributed databases with Built in Replication (for Retail)
- Intuitive User Interface Standard
- Supports SaaS model
2. 1C has very basic standard application – actually they have many configurations but only very basic available in English.
I talked to company who sells 1C in Canada – there main selling point “1C very easy to modify – customers buy it because they want unique functionality”. SURPRISE!!! We had NAV that was very easy to modify. Now we made step back – it takes much longer to develop but we did not get anything in replacement. Microsoft wants us spend thousands of hours on developing vertical solutions while they constantly increasing price and making it more difficult to sell. How do they expect us compete? Smaller customers does not care about “Microsoft” – maybe public companies care, but company who will use MiniApp will pick based on price + reasonable set of futures.
Looks like Microsoft wants us sell NAV to smaller customers in well defined vertical markets. We have this monster solution with Jobs, MFG, FA, Service mgmt, HR, WMS - this entire staff cost 3K per user (+ we need to make money for our vertical). But customers who we suppose to sell will use only fraction of this functionality. They will ask – why 4K if I need S&R, P&P, Bank + “Some Industry Specific”. This is where 1C (or any other company) will come and be very successful competing with us. There price $100 per user + whatever there solution center will charge for Vertical Solution.
I think something wrong with Microsoft NAV strategy. I do not have answer but looks like Microsoft need to think very carefully about their next steps. I hope they have it. (By the way - they wanted to buy 1C in earlier 2000. Maybe this is the answer - buy competitors and kill them).
Adaptive Business Solutions
http://justjewelrysoftware.com
Couldn't help but smile on this. We will see. Buying up competition (or a market) is possible, the question is if you have a strategy what to do with it / how to keep the customers (happy/not revolting/whatever - PAYING). I think this is where our views and Microsoft's really differ. I agree it's not "only" poor execution of a plan. A plan could be to buy the market share and "convert" them over time. This may work if the slice of the market you buy is big enough to keep you fed (or you have big resources). And you need to have a proposal for your new customers that they accept and buy into.
However, for the growth that Microsoft seems to have in mind, such a strategy won't be enough. So you try to change the ways the market is working (to "enable" growth), and align your product in the direction you want it to go. This, however, has the risk of alienating the entire existing market in it. I think that's more or less what we're seeing today.
with best regards
Jens
Tommy
Yes. Based on experience. But it is always easier to be and behave pessimistic. However: Not being a multi-billion dollar company myself I am just careful on the business advice of multi-billion dollar companies who say they are my "partners". The only thing I could be is a means to their end. Heeding their advice or "directions" could very well put me into bankruptcy very fast. So... when I see a pile, I call it thus.
I'm still out on the usabilty of NAV2013R2, though. Feels better than the other RTC iterations, but it's still far from "fantastic" or "brilliant". "Fit for business use" would be a pretty good rating.
with best regards
Jens
For my point of view there are three very big problems in NAV 2013 "Bugs, Bugs, Bugs". We never had a version like this before. Did they test any of the changes they made. Many of the Bugs are on such a low level of programming skill - are there only trainees working at NAV programming? For example I the language modules aren't working in the DACH Reports they changed the IDs and Names text constants and variables.
What they should do? Hire more well trained NAV People to fix the Bugs!
kind regards,
Benjamin
Without knowing anything about bugs in R2, I asume you never worked with version 3.00?
Bugs not an issue... 3.00 had first release of Manufacturing & WMS (i do not count separate 2.6 mfg version...), plus reservation was introduced. All was very big advances in functionality. We can fix NAV bugs. They should focus on base functionality.
Adaptive Business Solutions
http://justjewelrysoftware.com