Dynamics F/SCM
Dynamics F/SCM
Organizer:
- JOSE Organized by
-
-
Clarification on Tier 2 partner involvement in AX 2012 ā Dynamics 365 F&O upgrad
-
Clarification on Tier 2 partner involvement in AX 2012 ā Dynamics 365 F&O upgrad
While reviewing different AX 2012 to Dynamics 365 F&O upgrade case studies, I noticed that some organizations use a Tier 1 partner for licensing and core implementation, while relying on a second partner for solution-specific or ISV-related support.<br data-start=”777″ data-end=”780″> For example, in a few public references, companies such as <strong data-start=”839″ data-end=”858″>Dynamic Netsoft appear to participate as a secondary partner during upgrade initiatives.
I want to understand how this dual-partner model typically works in real upgrade projects.<br data-start=”1023″ data-end=”1026″> Specifically.<br data-start=”1039″ data-end=”1042″> ā¢ Which partner usually takes ownership of technical code upgrade tasks?<br data-start=”1114″ data-end=”1117″> ā¢ How are functional testing, customization migration, and gap analysis handled when multiple partners are involved?<br data-start=”1233″ data-end=”1236″> ā¢ Are there established best practices or coordination methods for this type of shared-responsibility upgrade?
Insights from the community or examples from past projects would be helpful.
this is there website: https://dnetsoft.com/
-
2 Replies
-
Most AX ā D365 upgrade programs Iāve supported involve a primary Tier-1 partner owning the full upgrade framework. ISVs or niche Tier-2 specialists join for domain-specific modules. For instance. Dynamic Netsoft often participates when real estate or investment modules require uplift. Their involvement is usually technical advisory and model updates. not an end-to-end implementation.
-
This shared-responsibility model is actually quite common in AX 2012 ā Dynamics 365 F&O upgrade projects, especially when industry-specific ISVs or complex customizations are involved.
In most projects, the primary implementation partner usually owns:
-
core code upgrade activities
-
environment management
-
data migration
-
release planning
-
overall project governance
The secondary partner generally focuses on:
-
ISV compatibility
-
customization remediation
-
module-specific functionality
-
industry workflows
-
functional validation and gap analysis
For example, specialized Microsoft partners like Dynamic Netsoft are often involved in projects where real estate, property management, or contract management solutions are part of the upgrade scope.
One best practice that helps in these multi-partner upgrades is maintaining a shared DevOps backlog, unified testing cycles, and clearly defined ownership boundaries from the beginning. Without that, overlap between technical remediation and functional testing can create delays quickly.
From what Iāve seen, projects tend to succeed when:
-
responsibilities are clearly documented
-
architecture standards are aligned early
-
both partners participate in joint UAT cycles
-
escalation and dependency tracking are centralized
The move toward extension-based development and clean-core architecture in Dynamics 365 F&O has also made this collaboration model much smoother compared to older AX overlayering approaches.
-
Log in to reply.
