IFS Cloud Platform Reviews

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 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.

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.