It would be very, very beneficial to have 3 tenants for even just the implementation phase so the implementation can go smooth and we can set-up a test environment/UAT along with the Production Environment and the demo environment. If they need an extra tenant for an additional company, then we add that extra tenant as a paid one.
I agree, this takes away a major factor in the decision process. Many of our customers buy Acumatica alone for the extra tenants...
I would agree with dmaughan83, for ease of implementation and being able to test different scenarios in different tenants, clients and consultants need more than 1 tenant (AT LEAST 2) to play with and test scenarios and processes in. Please consider at least providing multiple tenants for the first several months of the implementation process without a burden of cost initially.
I also suggest that Acumatica allow 2 tenants permanently instead of just one; this will allow the customers to have a Test tenant that can be refreshed periodically with a copy of their Production tenant, so that they can continue to test processes and new GI’s, dashboards, and reports even after their go-live. Also gives Acumatica a competitive advantage and protects the brand.
A standard of 2 tenants would be most beneficial - if you have to incorporate the cost by lifting the standard price a bit then fine but I believe the most important thing is that customers know its included as part of the deal.
GENERAL COMMENT:-
As part of general implementation, we create a copy Training tenant in the same instance.
We periodically refresh the training data as part of checking backup integrity, and we even colour the training system green to show safety.
We run a couple of import scenarios as part of the data refresh to alter all the email addresses for business accounts, contacts etc (not employees) to a test gmail account so people can can go through a full training exercise with data they recognise and without fear of sending someone an email accidentally.
As the users have the same usernames and passwords in both systems, it also makes it really easy for them, in a moment of doubt, to “switch” to the training tenant, safely try out what they wanted do and then flick back to the live system without having to logout and back in again.
The reason for having two tenants as part of the license is (obviously) so that training can be undertaken by groups larger than 2, and of course if someone decides they want to use the training system to “try out” something we have no idea of how many people would be doing that at any time.
For development and research we use a standard 2 user test tenant deployed to a separate instance and using a separate database.
In our case this is all on the same IIS server and RDS server - its a bit easier for us to do this as we generally use PCS licensing so that the customer can make better (and full use) of the AWS environment Acumatica is deployed in.
+1
1 Tenant is insane.
You can’t implement without a test/training environment. We actually use 3 tenants. One for development and testing, one for training (frequently refreshed) and a production environment.
We are preparing to start implementation on two new clients and are at a stand-still until Acumatica can change this policy.
Under this new structure did we loose the ability to setup a test tenant? I also agree this is going to slow down implementations tremendously as we have to deal with the management of remote systems to allow for proper testing and deployment to a live environment. Once live it is nice to have a test environment, we use the “Test Tenant” concept with our small business customers, can we do the same with other deployments?
+1
Selling a single tenant ERP instance is like selling a car with one wheel. Sure you can buy it, but if you want to drive it out of the lot, you’ll have to buy the extra wheels.
+1
This has been clarified. Apparently we can have as many test environments as we need (limited to 2 users), and request one additional test environment without the 2 user limitation if required. I think the original explanation of this change was made without the necessary context.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.