6 Replies Latest reply on Oct 24, 2016 9:53 PM by BruceRobertson

    Microsoft Dynamics NAV vs FileMaker


      I have a client who has elected to switch out of their long-evolved FileMaker system, and into a "grownup" Microsoft Dynamics NAV system.

      The current system is in FileMaker 14 now but strongly shows it heritage from a complex FileMaker 6 system.

      Any observations on this?


      Existing system is 87 tables, 38 files, 2500 fields, 1900 scripts, 104,000 objects as reported by Base Elements.

      Started a few months ago, claiming they will go live Q1 2017.

        • 1. Re: Microsoft Dynamics NAV vs FileMaker

          Don't worry, Bruce. You will still have plenty to do for the next decade once they discover how expensive and unwieldy it is to do the simple course changes and new modules that they are accustomed to you doing for them. Even if they go completely with their new system, they won't have it fully implemented for the better part of a decade.


          Microsoft Dynamics is pretty powerful, but it is still a battleship to FileMaker's frigate. With commensurate maneuverability.


          Keep us posted, please. 

          • 2. Re: Microsoft Dynamics NAV vs FileMaker

            Oh, yeah, and Q1 2017? That's the funniest part.

            • 3. Re: Microsoft Dynamics NAV vs FileMaker

              Well, after all one of their existing employees took a class so no prob.

              Yes, we'll see.

              • 4. Re: Microsoft Dynamics NAV vs FileMaker

                This kinda sums up my thoughts in one article Things You Should Never Do, Part I - Joel on Software

                I'm sure there are cases where a software re-write is warranted, but something tells me that in your case time would be best spent on the current system.

                There have been a few similar stories on this community go by where a platform change has failed.  It is quite possible that the shift will never happen.

                If it does happen then they likely will have quite a lot of pain, it is very unlikely that that will only have a little pain in the switch.

                Some issues:

                - They will have the normal bugs of a new build

                - They will have processes from the old system that they decided not to include, and will work out why they should have been included.

                - They may miss processes in the transfer depending on how good their internal documentation is.

                - Retraining of staff and some serious one-on-one time with staff during the transfer period

                It will effect their staff and their customers in a bad way during the transition to the new system and that transition can take a long time to complete.


                Anyway this is just food for thought, it looks like it is quite a large system with well established business processes, so these are my thoughts based on that.

                1 of 1 people found this helpful
                • 5. Re: Microsoft Dynamics NAV vs FileMaker

                  Started a few months ago, claiming they will go live Q1 2017.

                  Then they must be in early stages of user testing and documentation, no?

                  • 6. Re: Microsoft Dynamics NAV vs FileMaker

                    I don't know how they're doing. They have stopped any FileMaker development, though they are are still running all their business and web site integration in FileMaker.

                    All of that is OK with me; I have intentionally cut back on a lot of my FileMaker work, and I'm mostly retired.

                    When  a project pops up, that's fine. If they wanted to thoroughly modernize this system, that would be fine.

                    If they are not going to update it, I don't want to be involved.

                    The go-live transition should be interesting if and when it happens.