Comments on: What if they took the “C” out of CRM?

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:54:34 +0000

Just researching this whole XRM licensing model and may I suggest that if CRM cal licenses are required for other apps developed on XRM then your three licensing scenarios are not that relevant as in many cases the people using the XRM business apps would not be licensed CRM users as they have no need for CRM access – or the company has no budget to give them access!

So based on the limited info available on xrm licensing, additional CRM cal licenses would have to be purchased for additional XRM app business users.

By: Richard Knudson

Richard Knudson — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:47:21 +0000

Hi Pankaj —

Thanks for your question. And no, the way I would propose to expose data to external users would not be a violation. The key is that you cannot use the native CRM UI; you have to create all of the forms with custom code, and communicate with the crm database using supported web services methods.

You can see an example of the kind of app I’m describing in at least one of the crm accelerators. (http://www.codeplex.com/crmaccelerators) I believe the accelerator that has the external access piece implemented is the “eService” one: http://www.codeplex.com/crmaccelerators/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=19956

Cheers — Richard

By: Pankaj Kumar

Pankaj Kumar — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:45:39 +0000

Richard – If below group/ISVs use CRM Connector to expose all entities to the external users (what you call as potentially large user population outside the firewall), would that be a license violation?
===========
Organizations or individuals developing standalone XRM apps with potentially large user populations, many of whom might be outside the firewall. For this scenario the current licensing model for Dynamics CRM will make it prohibitively expensive for many. Let’s hope that changes!
===========

I understand that it would not be same as using CRM UI but it still offers plenty of benefits as compared with DIY C#SQL approach.

By: Richard Knudson

Richard Knudson — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:58:10 +0000

Excellent comment, Joel. I appreciate your taking the time to make it, and I agree with you on all points. The only real justification I’d make for taking the precise approach I did is that I wanted to be able to claim I did it in 5 minutes.

By: Joel Lindstrom

Joel Lindstrom — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:22:17 +0000

Richard

Great, comprehensive post. I agree with your points about licensing cost if going a pure XRM configuration.

A couple of comments about creating a role with no access to the standard entities–I have found that if you do this, there will be unintended consequences. An example is that if you turn off access to the service calendar, that user will not be able to track appointments in CRM. There are others that we have seen if you totally turn off accounts, contacts, opportunities.
I have found that the experience of these XRM users will be better if you give the users user level read access to all of the main entities, such as accounts, and then hide their links in the sitemap (as you describe). That way all necessary relationships will remain.
Also, from the security role point, there are a core group of permissions needed to just get into CRM, such as user settings and system jobs. I have found that it is best to create a role with just the permissions necessary to get into the system (call it base user or something) that everyone is assigned and then create specific roles, like XRM User, for the XRM users. That way you can be sure that everyone can get into the system and only sees what they want.

By: Richard Knudson

Richard Knudson — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:13:02 +0000

Nice to hear from you, JaAG — and thanks for the kudos! (I don’t know what kudos are, but I know they’re good

By: JaAG

JaAG — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:09:12 +0000

Luv this. I got three emails this morning to look at this post! Kudos!