Viktor Lesiv | CeleniaGary Fox| Tribridge

DON’T LET TOO MANY COOKS SPOIL THE BROTH

• Session Overview• Introductions• Roles and challenges• Case studies• Questions and Answers

Agenda

• Session Overview

• Introductions• Roles and challenges• Case studies• Questions and Answers

Agenda

• Celenia Software N.A. Inc.• "Dynamics AX Technical Expert Series" for DPC

Viktor Lesiv

• Solution Architect for Tribridge, Inc.• Worked on AX since 2.5• Numerous ‘multi-partner’ projects across 11 years

AX consulting

Gary Fox

• No experience• Single project with multiple partners• Many multi-partner Experiences• Few partners• Many partners

• Most common experience

Survey - Experiences

• Setting them• Communicating them• Managing them

Theme - EXPECTATIONS

• Session Overview• Introductions

• Roles and challenges• Case studies• Questions and Answers

Agenda

• Sales• PM• SA/Functional• Technical• Executive• Customer?

Survey - Roles

• Pre Sale– Timing/Schedule– Demo Flow– Limited Discovery

• Licensing– % on AX licensing– Fixed by module

Sales

• Resources– Time Line– Budget

• Billing– Bill Through– Direct– Client

Project Manager

• New Features– Learning curve– Limited/poor documentation

• Overlap of features– Conflicts and replacement of standard

Solution Architect/ Functional

• CODE BASE– Multi- model/layer and merge– Documentation / code commenting– Best practices/ poor technical design

• SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE– Hosting– Add-ons– performance

Technical

• Customer satisfaction– Credits/ Disputes

• Escalation – Control– Ability to hold partner accountable

Director/ Executive

• Confusion on areas of Ownership• Communication channels• Understanding ISV is AX not separate• Maintenance/Support• Issue resolution (process/extra time)

Customer

• Solution not as advertised/ expected– Immature– Bugs/ instable– Standard features removed

• Resource issues– Timing– Knowledge– Language/ Cultural/ Hygiene

Survey – Common Partner Challenges

• Other Challenges faced– Role– Challenge– Cause

Audience Experiences

• Session Overview• Introductions• Roles and challenges

• Case studies• Questions and Answers

Agenda

• 3rd Party system– With existing AX

connector– Without AX

• AX ISV• Services

– Hosting– Development– Informational/Advisory

Survey – Partner / Relationship Types • VAR Partner (by

Oppt)• VAR Preferred

Partner agreement (reseller)

• Sub-Contractor• Customer - Existing• Customer - Selected

• 6+ Partners

• 70% Outside Developer

• 20%+ new interfaces

• 40% Customer demanded

My Last 10 projects statistics

• Process– Library / Formal process (Survey)– Informal– Pre Sales/ Post Sales

• Considerations– Relationship Type/ History– Value add/ Cost / Margin

Partner Selection

• Clarity of Ownership• Development Standards (BC/WEB)• Work Management Process• Estimation• Language, Locality and Culture

Development Partner Considerations

• Rapidly Growing

• Numerous pre-existing Partner

• Fiesta Budget, Ferrari expectation

Case Studies

• Client overview (Industry, size, partners)

• Main challenge• How solved• Lessons learned

Format

Client Overview• Multisite Distributor• 300 Emp, 200 Users• Replace Legacy ERP

– 3 Existing Partners (no con)

– 2 VARS (ISV)– +4 additional ISV– 1 client Dev Subcontrator

Rapidly Growing Customer

Challenges• Software sold not as

designed (limited use)• Acquisitions (delay +

scope change)• Updated Versions/

Resources• Phased Cut-Over of

LE/Sites

• Software sold not as designed (limited use)– ISV used license and Configurations keys so features were disabled

• Acquisitions (delay + scope change)– Project scaled back, resources reassigned. NEW project plan developed upon

reengagement and revisited repeatedly as needs evolved• Updated Versions/ Resources

– Remerge, lessoned learnt to order ISV’s better• Phased Cut-Over of LE/Sites

– Solid plan required, that was revisited weekly and as adjusted

Solution and Lessons Learned

Client Overview• Process Manufacturing• 1200 Emp, 150 Users• Bailout from VAR

– 7 Existing – 1 VAR MX (TB)– 1 ISV 3P+Con

Numerous Pre-Existing Partners

• Challenges– Finance Advisory

Partner– Internal Project

Organization – Internal dev team– Information Silos

• Internal Project Organization – Assign a fulltime PM, who managed both theirs and ours and produced weekly

status reports• Internal development team

– Reviewed and reconfigured a branched TFS, provided deployment process and methodology with controls

• Information Silos / lack of documentation– Established MOSS site per our methodology– Email distribution list, Strict meeting management including minutes of meetings

circulated beyond though attended, weekly status report meeting• Finance Advisory Partners

– Partnership approach taken with open communication. Clear work ownership with timeline

Solution and Lessons Learned

Client Overview• Automotive Manufacturer• 60 Empl, 30 Users• Replace Legacy ERP

– 4 ISV– 1 Hosting– 1 3P NEW

Fiesta Budget, Ferrari Expectations

• Challenges– Controlling CFO, VC

leverage– GP vs AX– Parallel competing

Projects– Hosted environment– Unfamiliar LC ISV

• Controlling CFO, VC leverage– Strict PM methodology enforced, meeting continued but daily review of key

points/decision– Sr Executive sponsor assigned to project

• GP vs AX– Conversation was had with Sales to get background and put it to rest

• Parallel competing Projects– Weekly cross project meeting, open communication– Agile interface design process by SA leveraging assumptions until design known

• Hosted environment– 2012 was new, installation documentation wasn’t complete

• Unfamiliar LC ISV– Study of ISV documents and ISV resource contact was leveraged for advise and

review

Solution and Lessons Learned

• Multiple Partners add challenges• Clear planning and setting of expectations

are needed• Issues will arise, maintain open

communication, be flexible and solve as a team

SUMMARY RECAP

• Integration into project timeline/plan• Overlap of functionality / code• Language/ Cultural

SUMMARY RECAP

OPEN Q & A

THANK YOUPlease fill out your evaluation