IFS Cloud Platform Reviews

We are using IFS Applications for HR, payroll, finance, and supply chain manufacturing. We use quite a lot of the modules.

The most valuable features of IFS Applications in the latest version are the new user Arena interface. It's from Apps 9, but it brings more flexibility in usage, especially around different devices, such as mobile usage, which doesn't restrict you from using a computer. We are it for the HR side, and it's proving quite good. It has a new modern feel to it similar to a standard cloud application which enhances the user experience.

There should be some improvements in the predefined templates in IFS Applications.

I have been using IFS Applications for approximately 11 years.

The stability of IFS Applications modules has been mixed. We use the payroll module in a niche area, and it has not been very stable in the past. However, the newer version 10 is much more stable. The finance, supply chain, and manufacturing modules have been generally stable. It is important to note that any issues we have experienced with IFS Applications have been a result of our own setup rather than the fault of the solution. It is a case of "junk in, junk out."

We have implemented three robust backups and have new infrastructure and data centers in place. I have not experienced any issues with the solution since these changes were made.

I rate the stability of IFS Applications a nine out of ten.

IFS Applications is a scalable solution. Our business model is that we are a single-site user of IFS Applications, although our parent company uses SAP. If we needed to scale up our use of IFS Applications, we have an in-house team that can handle it from a technical and infrastructure standpoint. It would not be a problem.

We have approximately 542 users using this solution and we plan to increase our usage with HR to 1,000 users.

I rate the scalability of IFS Applications an eight out of ten.

The technical support could improve. My experience with IFS Applications support has been mixed. While we were using an older version, I felt that IFS was more interested in us paying to upgrade rather than providing support for the solution. If we had any issues or problems, we would often turn to a third party or partner for support rather than IFS Applications, unless it was a core bug in the solution. We have experienced yearly payroll updates with bugs that took a long time to resolve. In terms of technical support, I have used IFS for multiple roles over the past five or six years and have always found the support to be mediocre.

In the past, there was a lack of communication or miscommunication with the support. I always provided feedback on this issue to the support teams. The account managers I dealt with were not customer-focused and were more concerned with meeting their own targets. They were not helpful in achieving long-term goals or building long-term relationships. They would often insist on immediate payment and a quick turnaround on documents or quotes, rather than trying to find a solution to our problems. This was not a productive or helpful approach, and it felt like they were more interested in their own needs rather than ours as paying customers.

I have a very strong team managing this solution so that we don't need to go to IFS Applications, other than break/fix if there's a fundamental problem of the application.

I rate the support from IFS Applications a five out of ten.

Neutral

I have used Epicor and SAP previously. In my experience, IFS Applications offer more flexibility than other systems, such as Epicor and SAP. It is easier to configure and customize to fit specific needs. I may be biased, but I believe that IFS Applications are more user-friendly in this regard.

IFS Applications are very flexible as a solution, which is one of its strong points. However, it can become challenging to maintain if it is customized too much. We were able to build solutions to meet specific needs that IFS Applications could not fulfill. In my previous organization, we developed a rental module that was so efficient and effective that the solution was incorporated into their core solution. This was a point of pride for us and showed the versatility of IFS Applications.

The initial setup of IFS Applications was difficult due to the minimal usage at the time. My organization first implemented IFS Applications in 2012, and it was a very basic version. Many processes were carried out using spreadsheets and other systems. In order to upgrade to the latest version (version 10 at the time), we had to completely re-implement the solution and define processes and documents, as it involved 2B processes.

The business change was more challenging than the solution itself because we couldn't simply upgrade it without any value or return on investment. The solution had issues with data accuracy and governance controls, as it was not well-maintained or well-governed. We implemented frameworks and standards to address these issues, and we also had to go through a proper channel and due diligence process for any changes due to validation requirements. With version 10 running, we have mostly direct processes on the system without the use of spreadsheets. The reporting and data input coming from the system, and we can use it to demonstrate accuracy for audits by the FDA or MHRA as a single source of truth.

Another issue with IFS is the difficulty in obtaining validated status for a cloud solution. If we host the solution on our own servers, we can qualify the hardware, servers, and operating system ourselves and maintain control over it. However, if IFS Applications moves to use AWS or Azure, we would have to qualify for that move. I am not sure what IFS Applications currently uses for hosting.

I rate the initial setup of IFS Applications a four out of ten.

We did the implementation of IFS Applications ourselves. However, we had a third party provide some guidance, but we were the ones driving the project.

IFS Applications are competitive in terms of pricing compared to other vendors, such as SAP, Oracle, and Epicor. They are generally cheaper, especially for licensing costs.

I rate the price of IFS Applications a six out of ten.

I'm part of the IFS life sciences roundtable, there has been no emphasis on a life science-specific model. As an example, SAP, they have a pharma-approved template that you can use for the business. We had to develop our own documentation, our own testing, and our own strategy for getting it approved by FDA and MHRA. Something that I think they are missing the trick because if they were to have a life science-centric solution, they could be opening up too much better markets, especially around the big players, such as big pharma.

I am a member of the IFS life sciences roundtable, and we have not seen a focus on a life science-specific model. For instance, SAP has a pharma-approved template that can be used for business purposes. However, we had to create our own documentation, testing, and approval strategy for the FDA and MHRA. I believe this is a missed opportunity for IFS, as a life science-focused solution could potentially access larger markets, particularly within the pharmaceutical industry.

Everyone that I speak to uses SAP because for this reason. It's difficult to maintain. We have to maintain it now, but the documentation and the whole application life cycle around a life science or GXP would be huge.

I rate IFS Applications a six out of ten.

We were in an MRP manufacturing environment, and as time and technology moved on in the mid-2000s, it was time to move up to a true ERP system. It was pretty much a no-brainer to use IFS. We looked in the marketplace and found that IFS matched what we did as a project company, and that's how I got started in IFS. I've never really touched another ERP system.

We have the standard package and most of the modules. We don't do any MRO, and we don't have the vehicle package or fleet maintenance. 

We're using version 10. The solution is deployed on a public cloud through AWS.

We have more than 500 regular users.

We have plans to implement IFS in other areas. We have a new company that can leverage areas of IFS that we're not fully into.

We use configure to order and dynamic order processing very heavily. We have a highly configurable product, and configuring the product into IFS is super handy. It's really fast, and it makes it easy for the end user to get really large and very complicated orders in. That's probably one of the biggest efficiencies.

The financial posting controls are quite handy. The user interface is really friendly, highly flexible, and pretty intuitive for end users.

It works as expected for a regular ERP. From a reasonably complex implementation, I think IFS is right there with anybody else. They do everything very well. They have very standard business practices. It's all in there, and it's really how I have learned how businesses are really run. I just look at the models that IFS puts in front of me.

The next version has already been released, and some of the technical things are a little bit behind the curve in development. This is specifically security, maintenance, security role maintenance, and creation. This is in their new product, called IFS Cloud.

They've significantly changed the user interface and how the entire package is presented to both tech users and regular end users. They've gone to a thin client instead of their own client. There doesn't seem to be a focus on some of the maintenance and technical areas that users like me would use from the IT point of view.

These are areas that I've only seen in demonstrations. In version 10, which we're using now, everything is in good shape.

I have used this solution for 17 years.

I would rate the stability as nine out of ten. It's extremely stable. I can't remember the last time we had an issue.

I would rate the scalability as 10 out of 10. It's very scalable for multi-companies and multi-currency.

Technical support is very customer focused and does their best. Because our implementation is quite complex, some of our issues might take longer to document, but in general the support at IFS is pretty top-notch.

I would rate setup as eight out of ten.

Implementing IFS isn't that hard. It's pretty straightforward to get data into IFS. As with all implementations, the difficulty is understanding or loosening users up from the current thought processes and getting them more situated into best practices and slightly different ways of doing things with the same outcome. I'm in the middle of an implementation now, and IFS can do what is needed across the board. As always with the implementations, it's tough with training users and their experience. As far as the actual implementation of the system, given the data, it's pretty straightforward.

The nice thing about IFS is that the IT types can make the learning curve less steep, given the features that are in IFS. One of the cool features is that you can configure the interface and pre-position or pre-save corporate-wide queries. There are things you can do and push out to all users or some users, depending on how you manage the system.

There are some things that IT can do to make it simple for people who just want to do their job and go home. Some things can be configured and pushed out to users that make their daily lives a lot easier. They don't need to be experts in IFS or experts in the system at all. They can be a light user and still be very productive.

We just upgraded from version 9 to 10. It took a full weekend. We uplifted the whole database into the new Oracle. We have a lot of data, so it took a weekend, but that's probably the worst case scenario. In some implementations, there are mods from IFS that are formally part of their package but not part of the production version out of the box. I don't think it would be that long because you'd get the package, but it's just a little bit more difficult to manage as you get your executables, install them, and test them. Those modifications need a significant amount of testing over the usual out-of-the-box solution.

You don't need that many people to deploy the solution. You might need two people, but it boils down to one person in each expertise area. You need one person in Oracle and then someone who is going to install all of the executables that are actually IFS. On top of that, you end up with your IT team that interfaces with the users. It just depends on how many users you have, how technical your implementation is, and how many people you need to support all those people and the level of implementation complexity.

We did it in-house, but we have a third party that helps us on the DBA side to lift us and do all of the Oracle stuff.

We have seen return on investment with IFS.

There are varying license levels that you can purchase. I don't know that we've taken advantage of the license levels for regular users. They offer various packages. If a license isn't really needed, there are ways of working around it.

There's a dedicated license for people who just punch in and out and don't need to access IFS. It's a good implementation that has a return on investment, so those license fees are well worth it.

We evaluated two different solutions. A new company that's part of our enterprise was using Great Plains, which is Microsoft. They went through a formal process to help them understand what their best solution would be going forward.

They also looked at Salesforce and some other ERPs that would support a sales and service function. At the end of the day, once they started checking the boxes and seeing functionality, they landed on IFS as the better solution.

On top of the solution that actually matched their needs or company, they would have a huge step forward because of the already built knowledge of IFS. There are about 10 different companies between Canada and the US that are supported by one IFS team.

I would rate IFS as nine out of ten. My advice is to use IFS as intended. Don't go off the path. Really consider your business practices. Can they be changed? Is there a reason why they can't be modified slightly? Is the end result going to be the same? Those types of things sometimes cause people to get modifications that don't get them very far.

If I was going to change jobs, they would have to be using IFS.

I currently manage a project in the aerospace defense industry, focusing on precision manufacturing. Due to the industry's project-based nature, IFS Cloud Platform is crucial for planning and scheduling. Specifically, the platform's PSO component, which uses AI for manufacturing schedule optimization, is central to our operations.

The Platform has significantly improved due to its industry-specific design, which minimizes the need for customization and ensures better alignment with our requirements. This industry specificity and its evergreen model contribute to reduced failure rates in ERP implementations and ensure long-term sustainability.

The solution's most valuable features include the REST APIs for flexible integration with third-party systems and the dashboard elements for quick insights. The REST APIs facilitate seamless communication with suppliers and other systems, while the dashboard elements offer a comprehensive overview for decision-makers.

The solution's reporting tools still require improvement. The current functionality could be more user-friendly and flexible, which can lead to increased reliance on service partners for custom changes.

I have been working with IFS Cloud Platform for approximately three and a half years.

The platform is reliable and stable, with few issues impacting its performance. I rate the stability an eight. 

I rate the product scalability a seven. There is room for improvement in handling larger or more complex scale-ups.

The setup process was relatively straightforward compared to previous versions, with a successful end-to-end implementation completed in four and a half months.

The implementation was managed internally, and the process was efficient and well-executed.

The product is reasonably priced. The costs are justified by the value provided, considering the comprehensive features and minimal need for customization.

I rate the pricing a seven out of ten. 

I evaluated other options, including Infor.

Infor is a key competitor. Its warehouse management is noted for its strengths, but IFS Cloud offers a more integrated solution with fewer add-ons required, which is a significant advantage. 

IFS Cloud is preferred for its industry-specific design and integrated functionalities, which reduce the need for additional customizations and offer a more comprehensive solution than Infor.

I recommend IFS Cloud for its value for money and comprehensive feature set. However, potential users should be aware of reporting tool limitations and consider how these may impact their operations.

I rate it a seven out of ten. 

I am a consultant for supplies procurement, sales, and inventory management. I implement the supply chain and maintenance modules such as object navigator, APM, asset performance management, and ERP. We use the solution in my company for manufacturing, splicing, and maintenance service maintenance. After that, MRO, management, and overhaul. It is a manufacturing company, and we're using many ERP modules.

A high level of ERP can be handled in IFS, and the solution is easy to use. Sometimes, new colleagues I train on the solution can use it better than me.

Customization needs to be improved, and the solution should be simpler.

I've worked with the IFS Cloud Platform for the last two years.

I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten.

The solution can handle a minimum of 400 users.

The solution is easy to launch and install on your machines. The time it takes to deploy the solution depends on the level you will use IFS. If you're using it at a high level, it may take time to install the solution, but at a small level, the solution can be deployed with a few clicks on a Windows system.

We don't need a lot of staff to maintain the solution. You will need staff during implementation, but after that, one to two staff members are enough for modification and customization.

We pay for a license to use the solution, which is not very expensive.

I performed R&D to compare IFS with Oracle and SAP, and I learned that IFS is better than SAP and Oracle for complex projects.

I rate the solution a nine-point five out of ten. I recommend the solution. IFS is half as expensive as solutions from SAP, though it's much better.

I check IFS Applications for information, mainly its archives and employee database. I'm still working on a project for a polygraph company, which still has some technical information in IFS Applications. As a regular ERP system used daily for the business, I last used IFS Applications in 2019 because my company now uses SAP, but I still use IFS Applications from time to time.

In 2019, I was a planning manager, and I used IFS Applications to create a production plan and check the production from a planning point of view, and that was my most significant use case for the solution.

What I like about IFS Applications is that it's easier to use and implement than SAP.

I also like that the IFS Applications team is more flexible than the SAP team.

I also prefer the solution over SAP because it is faster, and I can tweak its settings based on my needs. I can prepare IFS Applications my way, and not according to some standards.

The support provided by IFS Applications has room for improvement. I'm based in Poland, and when my company had an issue, finding people from IFS to give my company the support it needed was difficult. I work for a big corporation. After a few years, the company decided to form an IT team that could manage issues related to IFS Applications because there was no direct support from IFS.

You can buy products everywhere, but the most crucial aspect is the service or support you receive after purchasing a product or solution.

What I want to be added to IFS Applications that would make life easier is a reporting feature that's easy and useful, rather than my company having to use a BI system or IBM Cognos for reporting. It'll be too expensive for small companies to implement a BI system in addition to an ERP system. IFS Applications currently has an Excel function that allows you to put your data into Excel and work on Excel. Still, it would be great to have easy diagrams and a direct reporting feature added to the solution.

Sometimes, I still use IFS Applications. I still have access to the solution.

I find IFS Applications very stable.

Scalability in IFS Applications is very good, so it's a nine out of ten.

My rating for the IFS Applications technical support team is a five out of ten.

Neutral

The company decided to go with IFS Applications because of its pricing and the possibility to customize the system. It was the best system at the time.

The initial setup for IFS Applications was easy, especially when you compare it to SAP.

On average, deploying IFS Applications takes three months from start to finish, but that's because my company has many departments.

Compared to SAP, the pricing for IFS Applications was very affordable. People using the solution would find that it's worth the money.

In the past, about three hundred people used IFS Applications in my company, but nowadays, not more than twenty.

I'd tell new users of IFS Applications or anyone looking into implementing it that it's a very intuitive system. It's easy to use. Even if you haven't used it before, you'll find it easy to use because IFS Applications works in Windows, and it has a lot of similarities with how tools from Microsoft work.

My rating for IFS Applications is nine out of ten. I have experience with three ERP systems, and I find IFS Applications the best because the solution was the easiest to learn and teach to new users.

My company is an IFS Applications user.

I would refer to the multipurpose system as one that can be scaled to fit different companies and their various business needs. I have worked closely with companies that use the solution for both manufacturing and service. Service in particular is an area where the solution excels. For example, a company that builds machinery could use it for after-market sales and maintenance.

The early 2000s were quite different from where IFS is now, making it hard to answer what a cool feature would have been then. However, IFS has been completely rebuilt, modernized, and cloud-based so we don't need bulky software installations. IFS also has a modern user interface that makes it easier to use than traditional ERP systems. The solution has been redesigned in the last few years, making it a more modern system.

As a consultant, examining the system, it appears that the challenge may be in marketing the system as a set of distinct modules. When a company chooses IFS as its ERP solution, it can be confused about which features to use and how to use them. Additionally, end-user documentation may be difficult to understand, particularly for those without prior experience with the solution, which can create a steep learning curve. As a consumer software solution, we expect that when we start using a new system, it would guide us through the necessary processes. Unfortunately, IFS does not have this guiding capability, making it difficult for users to understand the design process and which buttons to press in order to move forward. To gain a full understanding of the system, users often have to do extensive research and read through a large amount of documentation. The solution needs to improve its documentation and user-friendliness.

I have been using the solution for 11 years.

I give the stability an eight out of ten. Considering IFS Cloud is the new version of the system, we have encountered instability issues with it. We have had cases of unplanned outages, but we must bear in mind that all manmade systems experience outages. In that regard, IFS is no exception and I would not say that the stability issues are particularly bad. It can be difficult to manage multiple responsibilities, such as the customer hosting the system and then the system going down. The stability of the system in most cases cannot be attributed to IFS because it is likely due to a different root cause.

I give the scalability of the solution a nine out of ten. From a technical perspective, scalability can be achieved by allocating more resources or by moving the system to a cloud environment, allowing the backend to be scaled quite easily. The IFS system is highly scalable, both in terms of integrations and computing power, due to its open APIs. The solution is also highly flexible in terms of licensing, with the ability to purchase subscription licenses for additional users. Finally, the system is designed to handle multi-company mergers, with the ability to easily create subsidiary entities within the same system.

The technical support offered by IFS could be improved. Navigating their large organizational structure to find the right contact can be quite a challenge. The customers should be provided with comprehensive documentation so that they can manage the system themselves, without needing to contact technical support for every problem they encounter. Additionally, the resolution time should be as short as possible; reducing the time it takes for technical support to connect to the customer environment and begin investigating.

Neutral

I give the initial setup an eight out of ten. There is still a lack of comprehensive, step-by-step documentation and a steep learning curve, making the process difficult even for experienced technicians.

The integration of IFS Applications, the most up-to-date version, is incredibly straightforward. All system endpoints are open to customers with the appropriate license, making it a breeze to get started with integrating the system. This is a far cry from what it was like 20 years ago! In the past, customizing or integrating a system often required extensive tailoring and extensive coding from integration companies. However, this is no longer the case. Setting up the backend and server infrastructure for a system is now quite simple. We can choose to install the system in our own data center, in the cloud, or in an IFS data center. This is known as a managed or fast system, where IFS runs the backend and the customer can simply use the system.

Typically, in our company, we install the most up-to-date version of the system. Assuming we already have the necessary infrastructure in place, such as servers, deploying the system and performing quality assurance can be done in a matter of days.

The pricing of the solution may appear to be expensive for smaller companies with only tens of users; however, for larger and mid-size industrial companies, IFS is able to win deals and the pricing is competitive in the market. 
I've seen a lot of different licensing models, and IFS pricing might be one where we are required to buy a license for each feature module. This could be a problem for small businesses that require all the standard features such as finance, HR, and procurement; having to buy a license for each of these would make the total cost of ownership expensive.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

I believe that IFS is an outstanding system that can provide solutions for any industry. It is especially great for core processes, such as financial, HR, and supply chain. IFS is more flexible than ServiceNow and is perfect for companies with a turnover of more than a hundred million. The solution has features that can be tailored to almost any process.

I mainly use IFS Applications for auto management and manufacturing modules.

IFS Applications has improved our conduct of business.

IFS Applications' best feature is the user-friendly interface that has a .NET Framework application in the front end and an Oracle database and WebLogic middleware.

IFS Applications is not robust enough to handle high-volume transactions, so it's not suitable for larger enterprises. It's also lacking flexibility in platform compatibility - it's more compatible with Windows than other platforms. In the next release, IFS Applications should include compatibility with mobile devices.

I've been using IFS Applications for around two years.

IFS Applications is stable.

IFS Applications is scalable because it has a .Net application and WebLogic, which give it more flexibility in terms of scalability.

IFS Applications' technical support is good, but it needs to evolve in comparison to competitors like Microsoft, Oracle, and SAP.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward, and even less-experienced people should be able to handle it. Deployment will take around six months for small organizations and a year for larger ones.

We collaborated with a vendor team.

There's an additional yearly cost for support.

IFS Applications is very user-friendly and easy to deploy, and it's suitable for small and medium enterprises. However, I would advise that user training and support are essential to ensure users get the hang of the product. I would give IFS Applications a rating of six out of ten.

The most valuable feature is the distribution module.

An area for improvement would be transactions, which can be tedious to complete as the process is very complex.

I've been using this solution for five years.

We have had an issue that we don't get proper after-sale service when we get technical glitches.

I previously used SAP, which I prefer as it's less cumbersome than IFS. SAP also has better technical support.

The initial setup was complex.

I would rate IFS as five out of ten.