I need to ask a question about possibly reducing the reseller's involvement on an upgrade we want. I realize the question may reveal tremendous ignorance! This will be a long post but the background seems pertinent.
Background: I'm in an accounting firm that does the accounting (in MAS 90 3.71) for dozens of small corporations that are being liquidated.
-These businesses have closed, sold off their operating assets, are winding down in terms of settling various liabilities, leases, other contracts, etc.
-In fact, the A/R and sales order functions are never used.
-Only a small minority have more than a couple of transactions per month.
-In other words, none of the companies have multiple transactions occurring across multiple modules regularly.
-The reseller we work with recommends (prudently I'm sure), that in all upgrades their clients continue using the existing version, and create a test environment in the new version to discover any database problems. And test for 2 weeks.
-In our case, they're quoting a full day of setting up the test environment on the numerous companies and determining any out of balance issues - our staff would then correct those at that point using their instructions.
-Last point is, we've prepared corporate tax returns on all of these where we use annual financials, GL detail reports and trial balance reports. Any unusual out-of-balance GL situation would've been identified in the past b/c the data would've caused the tax return to be out of balance.
My question is, since none of these are live, normal operating entities that can't afford to have an interruption of service, would we be risking so much if we:
-maintained 3.71 on its own server,
-let them install 4.2 on a new server,
-test one of the companies and
-skip the rest of the testing process?
We want to do the upgrade right, but we don't want to overspend in a way that's not really called for.
THANKS FOR ANY ADVICE YOU WANT TO OFFER!
Background: I'm in an accounting firm that does the accounting (in MAS 90 3.71) for dozens of small corporations that are being liquidated.
-These businesses have closed, sold off their operating assets, are winding down in terms of settling various liabilities, leases, other contracts, etc.
-In fact, the A/R and sales order functions are never used.
-Only a small minority have more than a couple of transactions per month.
-In other words, none of the companies have multiple transactions occurring across multiple modules regularly.
-The reseller we work with recommends (prudently I'm sure), that in all upgrades their clients continue using the existing version, and create a test environment in the new version to discover any database problems. And test for 2 weeks.
-In our case, they're quoting a full day of setting up the test environment on the numerous companies and determining any out of balance issues - our staff would then correct those at that point using their instructions.
-Last point is, we've prepared corporate tax returns on all of these where we use annual financials, GL detail reports and trial balance reports. Any unusual out-of-balance GL situation would've been identified in the past b/c the data would've caused the tax return to be out of balance.
My question is, since none of these are live, normal operating entities that can't afford to have an interruption of service, would we be risking so much if we:
-maintained 3.71 on its own server,
-let them install 4.2 on a new server,
-test one of the companies and
-skip the rest of the testing process?
We want to do the upgrade right, but we don't want to overspend in a way that's not really called for.
THANKS FOR ANY ADVICE YOU WANT TO OFFER!