Here are a couple of other posts on this topic:

https://www.lawsonguru.co...w/topic/Default.aspx
https://www.lawsonguru.co...w/topic/Default.aspx

While it's the least intrustive for the end users and reduces overall downtime, it does require a much larger resource commitment for implementation/setup/testing, etc.

Matt, I think you are asking two questions here:

1) Has anyone implemented LSF9 with Lawson Security (LawSec)
2) Has anyone used FastTrack

For the first question, I have been at a few sites that have done it, and was one of the architects at a very large Lawson Security Client (HCA). Since you aren't doing Apps, it shouldn't be very difficult, though I would suggest, that if you are going to do Apps 9.0 within 18 months, to consider doing Security at that time, instead of with LSF9. This will easy testing for your users, and elimiate double work for you.

As for the second question, before you commit to FastTrack, I would throughly review the sample LS Security Classes and Roles (delivered with LSF9), and understand where your LAUA classes fall short. Once you do that, then compare FastTrack's delivered task breakdowns, to those of your organization. If they are fairly close, it would be a good start.

Some things you need to know:
1) FastTrask only makes sense if your organization's definition of a task and/or role, matches the generic definition FastTrack deliveres (aka: one size fits all)
2) FastTrack does not deliver Data-Level Security (Lawson couldn't possibily know what you have)
3) Rules on FastTrack Security Objects would at best be incomplete, due to #2 above
4) FastTrack will not account for custom programs, tables, or any other Objects
5) FastTrack delivered Rules will most likely NOT be the most effecient, due to the "one size fits all" paradigm

...at HCA, we didn't use FastTrack, as no one had successfully implemented Lawson Security at that scale. We were the largest live client at the time (May 2007). I think only WalMart will be larger in Rulesets, Secured Objects, and replaced LAUA Security Classes (a bit under 4000).

If you have any questions, feel free to call me

Kwane
954.547.7210

Thanks for the comments.  We are actually in the process of upgrading to LSF 9 right now and are beginning to work on installing Lawson Security.  We are not upgrading to Law Apps 9 until next year.  We were kind of forced into Security due to a username issue that could not be easily resolved.  We were just curious if anyone had run into significant issues, outside duplication of work, with doing both LSF9 and Security at the same time.  Our Lawson Client manager for the project didn't seem to think too many orginazations had taken this approach.  Just looking for a confidence boost on our descision.  Once again.  Thanks.

 

Matt

Kinsey & Kinsey also sells a LSF9 security migration and management tool that automatically migrates LAUA security classes to LSF9 security roles. In the process, it optimizes the security as well (meaning it finds/corrects redundant classes, etc). The product has analysis tools that make it easy to view and report on security topics such as who is accessing which tokens, etc. They claim the price is substantially less than Lawson Fast Track solution, takes 1/5th the time, and has superior reporting. Probably worthwhile for organizations that wish to leverage their LAUA class definitions, are experiencing issues managing a large number of security classes, or have a number custom programs. If interested, you can contact Kinsey & Kinsey Sales at: sales@kinsey.com or 1-630-858-4866.