Considerations on Multi-site Implementations

I have collected some resources that can help you when you are considering a multi-site implementation of NAV. (These recommendations can be useful with other Microsoft Dynamics solutions as well.)


  • A centralized model is one with a single Microsoft Dynamics NAV environment (i.e. single application & database). For most situations, this is not recommended due to the complexity of such a solution.
  • A decentralized model is one where multiple Microsoft Dynamics NAV environments are used, each with its own application files and database.
  • A hub & spoke model is where Microsoft Dynamics NAV is being used with non-NAV ERP applications.

Here are some of the key considerations when planning the implementation:

  • Customers with a large number of users and heavy transaction load may prefer a decentralized environment.
  • Customers with unique requirements across their business who use a customized Microsoft Dynamics NAV solution and ISV add-ins may opt for a decentralized environment to retain maximum flexibility.
  • Customers who need to deploy the solution into multiple countries may prefer a decentralized model.
  • Customers with uniform requirements throughout their businesses may prefer a centralized model.

Implementing in a multi-site environment might entail the following:

  • A decentralized environment would require the use of a data warehouse to facilitate cross-company reporting.
  • Consolidation for financial reporting might be needed.

These considerations are described in more detail in the following resources:

-Morten Rasmussen

Comments (3)

  1. epernst says:

    Hi Morten,

    Thank you for your blog post. I must say that your points are fine. But depending on the organization type, then you might also need the hub-spoke model together with both central and decentral NAV implementations. It’s not only limited to NAV to non-NAV implementations.

    Personally I’m a pro-centralized implementation guy – as that’s the implementations I’ve been working on the last 6 years, but of course it really depends on the organization.

    I have also been writing a few blog post about the subject of a Global Core (Centralized Solution) and you find them here:

  2. Morten Rasmussen says:


    Thank you Erik for improving this article.

    Yes, you are correct. Hub and spoke NAV to non-NAV can be both central and decentral. In princible all combinations can be used and all of them has advantages and disadvantages.

    I believe the important point is that we investigate what our customers needs and then offer the best implementation.

    There are pros and cons to both centralized and decentralized. We need to be aware of these and then handle the obstacles in any implementation.


  3. epernst says:

    Yes there are pros and cons to both ways. But I’m very happy to see that someone at Microsoft now acknowledge that there are other ways to do it than "the Microsoft way". That surely wasn’t the case when at Convergence in Copenhagen in 2007:

    But yes the centralized version is not for everyone!

Skip to main content