Implementation

Service Providers (or colloquially partners ) often refrain from undertaking organization or process changes during implementation projects of Microsoft Dynamics solutions. And it comes as no surprise: there are many risks related to it, and customizations are taken as a more traditional approach.

Fit Gap Analysis is one of the core activities of the Sure Step. It’s in fact so important that on most projects this activity should be done twice: the first time you do it on a very high level just get a quick overview of customer’s processes and requirements, and the second time you dive deep down into details to figure out everything.

Houston Neal of Software Advice is running a survey about the ERP implementation strategies , with the goal of identifying the best one. The survey is very short, it will take only a couple of minutes and is aimed at helping future customers choosing the best strategy.

Requirements and process review is one of the decision accelerators in the Diagnostic phase of the Sure Step, aimed at gaining deeper understanding of customer’s business processes, and documenting high level requirements, as well as possible implementation issues.

It’s official now, and it’s time I announce it here: after two years at Microsoft I’ve decided to take the helm of my career and venture into the realm of independent consulting. Two days into it, and all I can say about it is: what have I been waiting for this long?

MSDynamicsWorld.com has just posted an excerpt from my friend Dave’s and my book Implementing Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2009, delivering some content from chapter 4, focusing on the implementation process. The Chapter 4 draws a lot of its content from Sure Step best practices, and the fact that…

I’ve just got the news about Part III of Panorama’s ERP Report in my inbox. If you missed my analysis of the report , please read it first: part three builds on findings of the first two. I know that I am biased when writing about this, but how can I not be?

“Software projects are no different from other projects”. This statement is being repeated over and over at project management courses and seminars, even endorsed in books. It’s true that software (and ERP implementation, as a subset of software) projects have many traits in common with projects in other disciplines.

One of the biggest absurdities about ERP systems springs from the very word we use so often when describing ERP: integrated . ERP is an integrated system: it integrates all data and processes into a single application. Different modules look over different aspects of data and processes, but a change in one module automatically reflects in all others.

You can’t avoid customizations. Vanilla ERP is a great first step, and a valuable tool for establishing common language between the customer and the consultant. But in the long run? Probably not. Pristine uncustomized ERP won’t be sufficient, because of the gaps between your way and ERP’s way.