IFS Cloud Platform Reviews

The solution is an ERP. I work for multiple clients, and all of those clients are in different sectors. I do see most businesses take it on and use it as a full business management suite of software. It covers every aspect from human resources through to any operational purchasing, buying, contract, and project management and full finance and reporting suites.

For the most part, in all of my experiences with IFS, when a company embarks on using an ERP of this significance, it tends to be the main tool the business then aligns itself with and uses to run.

The software itself is extremely strong and IFS is one of the best I've worked with in terms of listening to a user base and modifying and adapting the software under different releases to improve. There tends not to be a massive weakness in the product itself, as weaknesses historically could be quickly resolved in the next patch or the next release.

It's also highly customizable by the clients themselves. If you use software and you find a weakness, you have the ability with the right technical skills to be able to modify that software in a bespoke way to fit your own company needs, so it tends to not really have any weaknesses on that side.

From a user perspective, the fact that it has fully open APIs and it is very customizable is, or at least was, quite unique to IFS from an ERP software industry which is usually more locked down. Historically you bought the software, and if you wanted to make a change to that software, you maybe needed another field or another page or a function, you would request that to be developed by the software developer itself. You would pay them for it, they would release it, and it would take many, many months. Then, you may also pay them to maintain that since it's outside of the core build. With IFS, going back to around Application 9, if I don't like what a field's called, I can change its name or I can add new fields, new pages, and new functions myself, within reason.

Most businesses will have elements that are unique to them. ERP generally in the past was one size should fit all. For some companies, especially companies that really believe in their own uniqueness, that can sometimes be a problem. IFS addresses that wonderfully by saying, "Well actually, if you don't like that column being there, you have the ability to just right mouse and remove it. And if you want to add a new one, you can do this."

That's a massive feature for usability. In terms of the most recent cloud-based software IFS has again been quite forward-thinking in modernizing the way that ERP works. They moved more towards almost like a phone model, in that every few months, it'll have new software updates and deployments with optional new features.

What IFS has done with IFS Cloud is shake up the industry again a little bit by saying, "Well, we're not going to build any more versions of it. Instead, you buy IFS cloud, that's your core platform, and we will release bi-annual updates that you can opt into."

I'm a big fan of the fact that they lead. It's nice to see software with a modern mentality coming out to actually say, "We think we should do things differently." 

IFS is a very large and complex software, and implementation of IFS can be challenging and may lead to a difficult lengthy project. It can take between 12 and 24 months in some cases to deploy. I have found that not all clients are fully aware of how big the task is that they're undertaking when they make a decision to move to software like this.

Companies need to be more aware of the complexity of an ERP implementation project and while I fully recommend moving to IFS, it is not easy and does require business change when adopting an ERP solution. 

New features are a difficult ask - I work across multiple industries and everyone would probably choose a different feature. Maybe BIM in Construction or Customs link-ups for importers/exporters.

I've been using the solution for approximately 25 years.

I'd rate stability a nine out of ten. 

IFS itself is extremely strong and stable. But like most modern software of any size, it can depend on your own internal strengths and networks. Something else that can and should be analyzed at the start of a project.

The solution is highly scalable. I'd rate it a ten out of ten in terms of the ability to expand. 

I'm working with three different companies that are using the solution. The user base would be around 1,400 on average performing more than 100 transactions per user per day but this is a tiny fraction of the system's capabilities. 

I have contacted technical support in the past.

The solutions to the problems, when they come, are, as you would expect, 100% accurate and correct. However, there can be a time delay in terms of you logging a case rather than talking to them directly.

You give the case priority. They will then review it and may reprioritize it. Therefore, I may have to wait a lot longer for a fix than I would like to but there is strong documentation, online help, and a good user community so a large number of issues can be resolved internally without the need for support contact. If it were a critical issue, IFS would respond instantly too so there is comfort in knowing that.

Neutral

Deploying the system, installing the servers, and getting everything set up like that - as long as you've got technical resources around you, you can do that stuff pretty easily. 

It's a difficult thing to score really - I'll give it an eight out of ten as, if you have the right resources, deployment is simple but deploying and stabilizing the software is just a small step in actually being able to run a business on it.

The reality of an ERP implementation is that you're coming in to essentially take over a whole business, and the most complicated part of that is aligning software with business processes. People that have never used the software before have processes that are not necessarily aligned out of the box. There are potentially changes in terminology and changes to processes so synchronizing between the software and the company that's now chosen to use it, can be difficult.

The deployment time will obviously depend on the business. Usually, things like the size of the user base come into play. Mostly the biggest factor is the appetite for it outside of the boardroom. On average, deployment to being fully live is probably 12 to 14 months but it will be different for every company.

There is an ROI. However, it's a long-term investment. You're unlikely to see a large return on investment within probably the first two years as your business aligns with the software.

There will be other quick wins though, some financial, but larger ROI will come further down the line.

There can be a significant outlay at the beginning, not just in the software itself and the user licenses but also in terms of things like the potential consultancy to help you run a project and get it in. After two to three years you'll begin to note an ROI though.

Pricing is relatively negotiable with companies like IFS. There is a fixed idea of what a license price would be however, if you have a significant amount of users, you might be able to negotiate it down. I would approximate the general cost to be somewhere around 1,000 to 1,200 pounds per user annually.

I'd rate the solution a seven out of ten in terms of affordability. I think the price is fair and reasonable based on what you get. 

There can also be additional fees too - there may be charges for maintenance, security, and support. None of these charges are hidden though and would all be very clear at the point of making a decision as to whether to use IFS or not.

When choosing software like this, you always evaluate other similar software before committing. As an example, I have one client that ran a full tender process across five or six different ERP providers, IFS being one of them. That included SAP and a few other big names in the industry, including Microsoft, JD Edwards, Infor, and NetSuite.

They chose IFS due to scalability, user experience, and how it aligned with their business. While the other software were perfectly strong at what they did individually, IFS outscored them all in all areas of that tender.

The reason for changing to new software was that age-old problem of having multiple systems not really talking to each other and needing that one view of everything, that one version of the truth. 

Another client I have worked with basically ran their business on Microsoft Excel, other than finance software and they just wanted to modernize. They were working in an industry where a few other companies in the industry were also using IFS, and their natural networks made IFS a topic of conversation and eventually, a choice.

I'm fully independent of IFS.

While I've been a user of IFS for 25 years, for the last four or five years, I've worked in a consultancy role, not for them, but independently helping companies use it. I tend to use multiple versions of the software, often at the same time. At the moment, I use version Application 9, and Application 10, and I also use IFS Cloud, the most recent version.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

I believe in its strengths. However, I'm also aware that there's always room for improvement with everything in life. Generally, IFS is very, very strong, multi-industry and it will genuinely do what a good ERP is meant to do. IFS also offer a good service in terms of support and there is a strong network of partners and independent companies of IFS experts available for advice and support.

The main advice would be to ensure you are fully aware of what you are embarking on with any ERP project, including IFS.

Realistically, if a client is confident and set on implementing IFS, it's important they understand it's not a three-month project. It's could be up to two years, depending on the company. That means cost, challenges but nothing good comes easy.

The software itself I'm very, very confident in. It's robust. It's very secure, it's very customizable, and it's very user-friendly. 

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 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.

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 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.