IFS Cloud Platform Reviews

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 am using IFS Applications for materials management.

Feature-wise, I like the way it provides inventory details.

Regarding an area of weakness in the solution, it is not a user-friendly solution.

In future releases, I want to see more reporting features and interactive dashboards included in the solution. In short, the solution's overall interface should be simplified.

I have been using IFS Applications for six years. Also, I believe that I am using the solution's old version, which is from 2007. Presently, we are using the solution in our company, and so we are end-users of the solution.

It is a stable solution.

It may be a scalable tool, but I am unsure since I use the older version. I don't know about the solution's scalability in the latest version. Hence, I won't be able to give any feedback. More than 500 people in my company are using the solution. I don't have any data on how many administrators in my company use the solution. We are upgrading the solution to the latest version since we are increasing the usage of the solution in our company.

The technical support my company receives from the implementation partners of the solution is not that great. If we send a query to the technical support team, the resolution time taken by customer support is more than expected.

Previously, I have worked on SAP. Compared to SAP, I feel that IFS Applications is not user-friendly. In SAP, one can efficiently operate using T-codes or transaction codes, while in IFS Applications, navigating from one page to another is necessary. As a result, in certain cases, when using IFS Applications, if we reach the end of a transaction without completing previous data, we will not receive an error message. In short, SAP allows its users to do transactions through T-codes, while IFS doesn't provide the same convenience to its users. My previous company used SAP, while my present company uses IFS Applications. I would say that SAP is better than IFS Applications. Also, the reporting part in SAP was much better compared to IFS Applications. However, it is important to know that I was using the latest version of SAP in my previous organization, while presently, in my new organization, I am using an older version of IFS Applications. So, such a comparison may not be appropriate.

The solution's initial setup process was complex.

Though we have checked the return on investment using the solution currently in our company, I don't have the data.

I won't be able to comment on the pricing since I wasn't looking after the pricing-related details of the solution.

Although we evaluated other software solutions, due to the size of our user base, it would not be commercially feasible for us to migrate to a different software other than IFS Applications.

Based on my experience, I suggest exploring products like SAP before deciding on IFS Applications. Choosing a solution that best fits the organization's needs is more important rather than solely opting for IFS Applications. I rate the overall solution a seven and a half out of ten.

I used to be an implementation coordinator and after that, an IFS administrator in a big production company in Poland. Implementation included HR, Payroll, Finances, Production, CRM, sales, inventory, supply, projects, documentation, maintenance, and services, as well as quality management. 

We used almost all of the modules which were available when we signed an agreement at the end of 2015. I'm not working for the company now; however, as far as I know, there are plans to update IFS Applications 9 to IFS Cloud.

The company has owned an ERP system in which we had all data - not spread between small local systems (inventory, sales, finances) and lots of Excel files.

Since January 2017, when production took place, my company could put 99% of data into IFS Applications 9. The files/processes which were left outside IFS included an advanced price calculator, which was made in Excel, and a shipment list for in/outgoing trucks, which was shared with security (it changed in 2020 when our programmer prepared a dedicated internal website integrated with IFS to terminate this Excel list).

The most valuable aspects of the solution include customization like custom objects, events, and menus. They offer the best advantages. We were able to do lots of automatization and increased functionalities with light modifications by ourselves, saving lots of money.

Having a young talented programmer, during the six years of use, we were able to save around 75 000 EUR preparing simple modifications using customization rather than ordering them in IFS / Partner. The company management still believes that IFS with its flexibility is the best choice for companies that don't want to change all their processes in the way that an ERP system might require.

Aspects of HR and payroll could be better. Polish law is complicated, and users are demanding. In the Polish market, there are a lot of smaller HR/Payroll systems that are easier to use. While IFS is powerful, this is sometimes also a weakness as it could be easier to use, yet it wouldn't be so flexible and open for customization if they simplified it.

Some changes should be made in almost every module. However, it depends on process logic.                                                                                

I worked with IFS Applications 9 for six years. This year I've started to work for an IFS partner so now I'm getting familiar with the IFS Cloud.

IFS was installed on local server and it was very stable.

We did previously use small local systems with modules for inventory, finances, and customer orders.

We never calculated ROI.

IFS is much cheaper than MS Dynamics or SAP solution, and it's more flexible so it is a very good choice for companies that don't want to be limited to making changes or only using a vendor company (causing very expensive changes). Licenses are also cheaper.

We also evaluated Microsoft Dynamics AX.

IFS is the best ERP solution for production companies.

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.

Customer use the solution for complete CRM.

The solution's maintenance and customer relationship management are best. CRM  is integrated with Outlook. You can click the record directly in the system and update the client simultaneously. It's also very user-friendly.

IFS is a Tier 1 ERP,  We are using IFS Cloud Platform as a partner for one and a half years. We are using release 22R2 of the solution.

The tool is stable if it's appropriately implemented as a standard solution and according to the client's needs.

I rate the solution's stability an eight out of ten.

The solution is highly scalable.

Many small businesses are using this solution.

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

Technical support is better

Neutral

The solution's deployment is dependent on the regions. In some regions, companies prefer a cloud environment, but in heavy industry and factories where the manufacturing of products is done, they deploy it on-premises.

For the customer, the tool is very scalable and easy to use.

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.

I'm working on UPD 12 and IFS cloud applications. IFS has multiple product lines from ERP systems to Enterprise Asset Management and service management system. They also offer a maintenance module, provide operational inclusion software, and R&D. These are their main offerings. I have used this application in two industries, predominantly in manufacturing and aero defense. Both sectors have successfully deployed this solution. So far, we have good testimonies from Emirates Airlines, Lockheed Martin, and many other regional players who are into independent fleet management or MRO kind of services.

The best feature is the maintenance module, which is essentially an industry-specific workflow designed with a manufacturing module as per industry standards. It's very precise and specific without having complex functionalities. It's straightforward. Field Service Management is definitely a wonderful product that IFS has developed because it caters to field services. The energy and utility sectors can answer their business needs using the software.

The integration is a bit complex, and post-implementation support services need to be improved. They have a service center based out of Sri Lanka. The support aspect is good, but the response time is a little slower than we anticipated.

In the next release, it would be better if Warehouse Management could be improvised. They have a product line that's a data warehouse management system, but it's still premature and requires a bit of enhancement.

I have been working with IFS Applications for eight years.

It's a stable product and I would say that it's reliable.

Scalability is complex because of dependencies. For any core level modification, it's not that easy like other product lines because the OEM vendors give the choice of modifying the core. However, IFS doesn't appreciate modifying the core, and there's a restriction there. You really have to change the application to match the business requirements. It's a kind of a complex scenario. We have about 300 people currently using this solution.

Their post-implementation support is good but a little slower than anticipated.

The initial setup is a complex process, and it's not a simple implementation. But the methodology that IFS follows is Agile, and it's a patented approach. It's not the generic approach we follow that makes the implementation simplified. It's definitely complex and not a straight-fit product line. Cross-functionality dependencies are there, and it's not simple. It's definitely a complex implementation.

An integrator helped us to implement this solution. This product line is dependent on integrators, OEMs, and Windows because the resource pool isn't readily available. Reachability is less, and they have very limited resources available in the market. For any kind of support activities, either we have to rely on integrators or the vendor directly. However, we have a dedicated maintenance team within the company.

IFS Applications is expensive software, but it's on par with SAP and Oracle. It's for large enterprises and government entities and not for small and medium-sized enterprises. They have one licensing model, but if you want to have a module-specific license, they provide component-based licenses. Unlike SAP and Oracle, it doesn't have different levels of licensing. It's one level of licensing.

I would tell potential users that they need to consider change management because there could be a lot of resistance from the end-users because of the complexity of running this application. The output is very advanced, but you would really need to put in some effort to achieve that.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give IFS Applications a seven.

We are using Assyst in a Hybrid environment with Assyst app servers running in our own virtualized servers with the database and storage in Azure Cloud, which works well.

We use the system for IT Service Management across 16 ITIL v3 processes as part of a cohesive service management platform for delivering shared services for large organizations.

We integrate to Azure AD, LUIS/BOT Framework for insights and Virtual Agent support, as well as NetSuite for the asset, user, and billing interfaces.

Our focus is on process efficiency while ensuring a great customer experience.

Using this product allows us to standardize our approach to baseline improvement activities across business and IT process domains. The omnichannel capabilities allowed us to deploy a modern cross-channel delivery that we can manage from one pane of glass. The OOTB features provide support for many IT frameworks which we configured to meet our needs quickly. 

The OOTB analytics and in-tool BI charting allows analysts to really quickly assess historic and predicted scenarios to intelligently assess the situation so they can take the right actions 

ACE Omnichannel - Self-Service, Apps, Bot, Knowledge across devices, and personas. This has allowed us to divert resources away from answering phone calls on to more business valued initiatives. 

The workflow engine is very powerful and so is the service view CMDB. The design once - deploy anywhere is really good.

One of our favorite features is the "Info-Zone", which provides operational intelligence in flight and in context to guide both business users and support teams to productivity.

We would like to see AI-driven CSI functions built into the tool that would allow us to quickly tie our improvement goals to metrics and activities, so Assyst will suggest the next steps to help us get closer to our goals. 

Another area we would be interested in seeing is further support for MS Teams. We have used the APIs to work solutions but as soon as the graph APIs from Microsoft come out of Beta, we would love to see a packaged app here that is supported through upgrades like the rest of the Axios products. 

We have been using Assyst for five years.

No glitches actually. Our experience has been uneventful in that respect and we find the apps very stable.

This product is good for large organizations, with 2,500-250,000 employees.

Good phone local support and self-service as well. Good ( almost too much ) documentation.

Prior to Assyst, we used BMC Remedy. We wanted something that was more packaged and OOTB vs custom building ourselves.

There are lots of templates to work from to edit/tweak.

Both vendor and in-house teams assisted us with deployment.

Our ROI is 4.5 times our investment in 18 months.

Ask for all-inclusive pricing, as they are pretty flexible if you ask for custom models. Don't underestimate the focus on content. A system on its own is as good as the data it can leverage like content, categories, and knowledge.

We evaluated ServiceNow, Ivanti, and Cherwell.

Definitely consider this offering. There are many features and options that come with it that don't require custom dev. They upgrade and are supported.