The Real Reasons You Don't Want to Lean on Your Partner's License When Launching Microsoft Dynamics NAV

June 8 2010

The partner organization implementing Microsoft Dynamics NAV for you may postpone the actual purchase of your license until the project is fairly close to go-live. In the meantime, it does the development and the testing on-site (or off-site) using its own partner license.

Consultants have many arguments (or better: excuses) to justify this practice, but as end-user of the system, you have many benefits in having the license available early in the project, and many risks if you wait until the latest. So, when should your consultant actually order the NAV license for you?

About Vjekoslav Babic

Vjekoslav Babić is an independent Microsoft Dynamics NAV consultant, trainer, author and blogger, with 10 years of experience in NAV and 16 years of experience in IT.

As a solutions architect and a project manager with a leading Microsoft Dynamics President's Club service provider company, as a Microsoft Dynamics NAV consultant with Microsoft Services, and as an independent consultant, he has been working on Microsoft Dynamics NAV implementations ranging from tiny one-man-bands to international mega-corporations, delivering services and trainings all over the world.

In 2008, Vjekoslav co-authored the acclaimed book "Implementing Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2009". Vjekoslav runs an active blog about NAV implementation, project management and development best practices, acts as a columnist and editorial advisory board member at, and as a columnist in a number of other web or printed periodicals in Croatia and worldwide. Vjekoslav is also a frequent speaker at Microsoft or Microsoft Dynamics conferences.

Since spring 2010, Vjekoslav has been awarded the prestigious Microsoft Most Valuable Professional (MVP) award for Microsoft Dynamics NAV.

More about Vjekoslav Babic

Comments's picture

This used to be more of an issue with MBP, much less so with BRL except where development objects are required. I agree that system acceptance testing and UAT must be on the customer's licence. The partner licence is useful during initial design workshops especially as it allows the customer the opportunity to change the scope of the project and determine exactly what their licence should be (this was essential under MBP). The main factor that puts clients off purchasing the licence early in the process is the fact that they are charged BREP from the moment of purchase. Therefore the juggling act in the UK tends to be cutting the licence with sufficient time to test versus wanting that to be as close to go-live so as to reduce the amount of maintenance paid for test systems. Your suggestion that the customer just buys a job lot of objects on the basis that it's only a few quid is amongst the most bizarre I've heard. Good luck with persuading customers to buy software that they may not need / use and that will be charged BREP and support on!

grantbrimhall's picture

What would be really nice is if Microsoft would let you put a down payment on the license, then give you a testing license with your specific functionality, and then not start the "yearly" ticking of the clock until go-live when you pay in full for your license. Why should the "maintenance clock" start ticking during the testing phase? Practices like this really get under a small business owners skin. and drive a wedge between Microsoft and customer.

najaf.muhammed's picture

In the recent Decisions 2010 saw a slide which says more than 90% of the ERP implementation overshoots the schedule. This is not just for NAV, and since this is a global phenomenon there sould be some mechanism not start the meter ticking the moment license is issued, but on go-live. But the project implementation time-frame should be realistic. In most cases, the BREP is due even before the projec is gone live and the pressure is immense as the customer has not yet started reaping benefits out of his investment but is asked to pay renewal fee.