Dynamics F/SCM Customer Experience (CRM) Dynamics GP Dynamics Business Central (NAV) Dynamics SL Power Platform Fabric Copilot

[Mark Michael]

Looking for feedback regarding: We are considering a two tiered ERP solution for our smaller companies with D365 F&O already in process for our larger companies, considering Business Central for our smaller companies (smaller defined as <$15m revenue).  I would like to hear from those of you that have considered or implemented a two tier ERP structure, the primary concerns we have are regarding going this route are: 
1) Data integration between F&O and BC
2) Increase in Support requirements regarding additional skillsets to support BC in addition to F&O
3) F&O is “overkill” for small companies, business justification for the implementation timeline/cost vs BC 

Thanks!

Mark Michael

——————————
Mark Michael
Ancra Group Program Manager, Ancra International
mmichael@ancra.com
908-304-2449
——————————

[Mohammed Amer Siddiqui]

we have 2 Tier ERP implemented, however one of them is non-Microsoft ERP.

1. Microsoft provide CDS and other tools, but i don’t think there is out-of-box integration between F&O and BC. Most important is to decide how deep you want the integrations to be.
2. Based on my experience with both F&O and BC/NAV, support team need to learn additional skillset but BC is lot easier specially if they already work with F&O
3. I too agree that F&O is overkill if there is no clear need for it. BC is simple to use and administer.

——————————
Amer MS
——————————
——————————————-

[Gary Screeton, CPA]

?Mark,
Keep in mind that if you stay with (D365FO), many of your setups can be shared across entities (like chart of accounts, calendars, dimensions) saving you a lot of time. Plus Intercompany accounting can easily be configured if these entities are on the same platform. BC, although simpler, lacks many capabilities of F&O and CDS does not work with it. Reporting is more robust and easier with all entities on one application. Licensing would be easier as well since you would need 2 types of licensing for the 2 applications. You may end up causing your self more headaches using 2 tiers.

——————————
Gary Screeton
Sr Adviser System Architect
DXC Technology
Indianapolis IN
——————————
——————————————-

[Ian Deynzer]

We have exactly the same issue and went through the same evaluation exercise last year. in much detail

D365FO and D365BC are two entirely different products with no significantly compatibility i.e. consider them to be from two independent vendors.

Unfortunately our core and biggest business (currently on AX2009) is complex and requires D365FO functionality so we were forced to implement D365FO group-wide which has cost, training and complexity implications for our smaller companies with $5m to $15m turnover.

The deal breaker was complexity of inventory and intercompany trade if entities were on both platforms.

My practical advice is that unless your organisation is a large entity with significant resources and budget, it is better to adopt a single-tier BC group platform if at all possible and to make every effort for the largest subsidiary to adapt to BC using compromise and BPR principles.

In the long-term BC will be significantly cheaper, simpler and easier to implement and use. One has to remember that FO is a global enterprise system much like SAP therefore everything you touch will be complex and expensive albeit powerful and functionally rich.

The BC approach is simplicity and affordable cost and it is also surprisingly  powerful and functionally rich via a myriad of ISV add-ons (which you will have to include in the budget).

Hope this helps, Ian

——————————
Ian Deynzer
CFO
Jacobsen Creative Surfaces
Auckland
——————————
——————————————-