IFS Cloud Platform Reviews

I am using the distribution model, mainly for materials management.

Prior to using the IFS site, it was quite difficult for us to track, access, and extract the inventory available to us. Once we started using IFS, it's introduced us to a way to track and monitor the inventory. From a user perspective, it is extremely useful for us.

The MS management information system reports are the solution's most valuable feature. The reports are very useful. It's also quite easy to generate them.

The solution is very user friendly.

The product is quite flexible. 

I won't be able to give the correct feedback. I haven't seen everything in action, however, based on my experience, what I've found is that lot of days we are using mobile phones or tablets. Yet, this solution doesn't work on those types of devices. They need to create something that can be used on Andriod devices to make it easier to use in terms of how we work. It should incorporate the devices we're constantly utilizing.

The user interface can be improved. When you're clicking through the screens, there are some icons or symbols that really need updating and would be more useful and noticeable if they are aesthetically pleasing. 

I've been using the solution for the past three years.

The solution doesn't seem to have bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash. I'd say that it's quite stable. For us, it has been a reliable product.

I believe the solution to be quite scalable. 

Right now, we have about 500 people or more using it.

I haven't dealt with the solution's technical support team directly. At our company, we have an in-house IT department that we typically go to if we have issues with any solutions. They may occasionally reach out to IFS, however, I don't, so I can't speak to the quality of their services.

The initial setup is more or less straightforward, really. At first, we faced a bit of difficulty, however, it was more about us needing to get used to the product. Now that we use it regularly and we're more familiar with it, it's easier.

We did have the assistance of a consultant, although we mostly handled the implementation ourselves.

My corporate office has a relationship with IFS. There is a joint venture with one of our implementation partners.

We might be using an older version of the solution. I don't believe it's the latest version.

I'd like other organizations to know that the solution is very friendly and easy to upgrade. You can update it right through the screen if you need to. If an organization needs a solution capable of generating lots of reports, this solution fits the bill. 

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

I use IFS Cloud Platform to run our business since I am a part of a service organization, where we use it throughout the business and to manage our service engagements with customers related to projects, especially where the sales and service contracts are heavy.

I am a light user of the system, though, for the business part, my organization uses it quite frequently. I use the solution to look at areas like the plan versus actual costs and such related areas, along with the resource allocation part. From a personal perspective, my main use of the product revolves around using the self-service functionality, which is mainly around HR and expenses.

I think that with the latest version of the product in the cloud, the user experience is very good since it is highly configurable and very capable software. I have seen that one of the areas that my company has identified for improvement might be the rental management capabilities within the solution. IFS Cloud Platform is a very strong solution, offering more opportunities than others, especially in the area of service it offers, as there have already been huge improvements in IFS Cloud Platform in the last couple of years, making it an industry-leading product. As a business, we are very happy with what the product does for us and its capabilities, providing us with a good experience with the current model of the solution so far.

I don't have any suggestions related to the solution to provide to the vendor since I think the solution offers many more capabilities than what we could use in our company. The product is not short on capabilities and has everything that my company requires.

I have been using IFS Cloud Platform for three years. My company has a partnership with IFS.

With IFS Cloud Platform, there is constant uptime apart from the time when my company deals with the product's release updates. When the product's release updates come out twice a year, we have to deal with a sort of short shutdown while it goes live, apart from which I don't see any unplanned downtime with the system at all. The solution has been very good since it has been up and running.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine or ten out of ten since it is an extremely scalable solution that can be used for various use cases with thousands of users. The product is geared up to grow with the business.

The simplicity or complexity related to the product's initial setup phase is something that actually depends on the complexity of the business where the setup phase is being carried out. Suppose the setup phase is carried out in a standard manner. In that case, it is not a complex process since it's quite an intuitive solution that you can integrate with ClickLearn, providing very effective training materials for new start-ups. If you have a very complex business, you can use the solution since it's extremely functional. The more you want to do with the product, the more complex the projects can become. My company recommends always adopting standard processes when you can during the setup phase. There are opportunities in the product provided if you have specific business cases since IFS Cloud Platform is very functional and flexible, so it can be tailored to your specific needs. If the business requires it, the product can get quite complex, but if you use it in a standard way, it's not too bad as a product to implement.

The solution is deployed on a private cloud.

IFS Cloud Platform is not a cheap solution, and it is an extremely functional one. I consider it to be a well-priced solution compared to other mid-range or high-end ERP solutions. From a price perspective, yeah, I think it's a pretty fairly priced product, but it's difficult to comment on the price too much because I haven't had too much exposure to the exact project costs of the product. With IFS Cloud Platform, it's quite difficult to set a benchmark against the products.

The number of people required for the maintenance of the product actually depends on the specifics of the project for which the solution is used. The biggest impact related to the product is in terms of the footprint of the solution, especially when considering how much of the solution a user really uses, and it can vary from project to project.

It is a really functional and good product. It is a very good ERP system, and if you implement it correctly, it is a very capable solution.

I rate the overall product a ten out of ten.

I am using IFS Applications for the finance module applications and also for all of the submodules in finance such as AR/AP. It covers all of the finance areas.

The most valuable features of IFS Applications are their intuitiveness and ease of use. The navigations are also straightforward, which makes it easy to train users. The feedback I always receive is that it is very user-friendly.

IFS Applications can improve the reporting capabilities and increase the speed of feedback time in the IFS Applications. This would help with the overall performance of the solution and provide better experiences for customers.

One idea is to expand the areas of operation for the product. There was also an internal case study that looked at the possibility of adding a feature for internal offsetting between different companies within a group. This would allow for the offsetting of debts and balances between the companies, rather than having each company make separate payments. It's called cash flow offsetting. It would've been a great addition to our current systems IFS Applications. Unfortunately, the feature is not currently available.

I have been using IFS Applications for approximately 10 years.

In the on-premise version of the solution we had not experienced a lot of downtimes, but there are many other factors involved with the on-premise version's infrastructure that could cause downtime not related to the actual solution. The cloud version has been very stable.

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

IFS Applications is highly scalable. This is not only its ability to handle large volumes of data but also in terms of its ability to add new modules and features over time. IFS Applications has a lot of sub-modules to choose from, which can be confusing to navigate, but it also provides the capability to add new components if needed. Additionally, the solution can be localized for new countries as needed, which allows for a high level of flexibility and capability.

We have approximately 4,000 users using this solution across the globe.

Whether we use the solution on a daily basis depends on the specific module, but for many users, it is used on a daily basis. However, for management-level users, it may be used less frequently. For those who are responsible for inputting transactions, it would be a daily task. 70 percent of users are using the solution on a daily basis.

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

We have had multiple interactions with the technical support team, particularly for issues related to bugs or similar technical problems. 

The support is good overall but they can improve the speed of providing solutions. The speed has been improving over recent years, but there could still be a faster solution, which would be beneficial in the future.

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

Neutral

I have previously used ServiceNow and also Oracle Financials.

When comparing them IFS Applications are more user-friendly and intuitive for end users. For example, the GL account structuring and data visualization in IFS Applications is more straightforward and easy to understand compared to Oracle Financials. With IFS Applications, the user can not only input data but also better understand it, which is a big advantage of the system.

The initial setup of IFS Applications is relatively straightforward, but it also depends on the level of engagement and capabilities of the customer and consultant involved. However, in comparison to other similar applications, IFS Applications are relatively easy to set up initially. 

The setup ease is as good as the person who is doing it.

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

I would advise others to be cautious in choosing the individuals or companies responsible for implementing the system. It is important to have experts with the domain experience to ensure a successful implementation. Additionally, having the right people on board is crucial to ensure that the system is set up and used correctly. I would recommend finding the right team to make the implementation process as successful as possible.

I rate IFS Applications an eight out of ten.

We provide the implementation for our clients.

IFS is an ERP, that is globally ranked number four. It's a master's in enterprise management and foodservice management. 

Globally, we are doing multiple projects with many of our clients, but most of these projects are coming as a transformation to digital. As a part of the digital transformation journey, we need to understand the cloud solution as well.

We work in the four segments and we agree with the enterprise solution in the workplace.

The following are the four segments we work with:

1. Aerospace & Defense
2. Manufacturing
3. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
4. Enterprise Asset Management (EAM)

Some of the strengths are Enterprise Management Solutions and the series of Management solutions which is number one in Gartner's report and has been for the last five years.

This solution is very versatile, and it's very flexible.

There are certain digital features that need to be incorporated, such as IOP. It's a blockchain platform. We are currently exploring these types of features to enhance our solutions for added value for our clients. 

Pricing is an area that could be improved. They could be more competitive.

We have been providing this product for more than three years.

We provide the latest version, but there are some clients who are working on older versions and want to transform them into the new version. 

It's a conversion to the new versions, along with the digital transformation especially in the manufacturing sector. 

They want some kind of new technology to come up and add some value to them. That's a part of the journey for digital transformation.

It's a stable product, but depending on the clients, there are times where upgrades are required for custom development.

It's a scalable product. We can scale it easily and it is not a problem.

We provided services for all types of clients. We deal with very large clients to small growing clients as well.

This solution is suitable for any size of company and there are no constraints.

There are times where we require technical support. Most of the time we provide our clients with support.

The initial setup is not complex. It's easier than other IOPs.

The time for deployment depends on the client's requirements, and the scope of the project, but on average, it takes three to six months for deployment.

We have a team to implement and maintain and support this solution for our clients.

It's not cheapest, and it's not mediocre pricing. 

Pricing is comparatively or sufficiently higher than maybe all other IT solutions.

There are no additional fees, and everything is included in the license.

When comparing the IFS product, and to some extent SAP, we can say that IFS stands on the top. 

Definitely, I would recommend this solution to others.

The solution from IFS is one of the best solutions and I would rate it a seven out of ten.

We work in the four segments: aerospace and defense, manufacturing, EPTA (enterprise) which is contracting and sub-contracting, and enterprise management. We offer enterprise solutions in the client's workplace. 

The enterprise management solutions within the solution are very strong. It's been listed as number one in the Gartner Report for the last five years. They really are at the top of their game.

The solution overall is very versatile and flexible, especially compared to other products.

As a salesperson, my perspective is limited. Someone from a development team may have more insights into which features may be lacking.

It would be ideal if, in the future, the product could incorporate IoT and blockchain elements. We'd like to explore more of these types of features going forward. We feel they could enhance our client experience and add value to our own solutions.

The pricing could be a bit better. It's a little high.

I've been dealing with the solution for three years at this point.

The solution is very stable. Even if we have to do upgrades or customized development, it performs well. We don't find there are issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

Scalability isn't a problem at all. It's very easy to do if a company needs to expand the solution.

In a large majority of cases, we handle the technical support for our clients. It's been very rare where we would need to reach out to IFS technical support to get assistance with problems.

The initial setup isn't too complex. In fact, it's pretty simple. It's straightforward.

The length of time it takes to deploy depends on the client's requirements and the scope of the project. On average, it takes about two to six months to deploy.

I haven't personally handled the implementation, however, as I am more on the sales-side.

We handle the maintenance on behalf of our clients as necessary.

The solution is not cheap. It's competitive, however, it's a bit higher than other options on the market. Everything is included in the license. You don't have to purchase additional features beyond that.

So far, we've compared IFS to some extent with SAP. Comparatively, we can say IFS stands on top, at least compared to SAP.

We have to work with the latest version of the solution. However, there are some clients who are working on the old versions and they want to perform on the new versions. Occasionally, there is conversion onto new versions. 

Along with the digital transformation, clients are especially in the manufacturing sector. They want some kind of new technology to come up and add some value to them. That's a part of the journey for digital transformation.

We are currently exploring the cloud, even though we mostly work with the on-premises deployment model.

The solution is suitable for all sizes of business. We have solution working for big clients as well as for small, growing clients.

Overall, I would recommend the solution. It's one of the best on the market and is well known.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Our client primarily uses the solution for IT service management as well as business service management. 

The service catalog is a really good aspect of the solution. It offers incident management, problem management, change management, and a self-service portal among other features.

The workflow of the solution is very good. 

The foundational architecture is also impressive. The whole service management side of it is based on the CMDB. That concept is really strong in their product.

The product requires heavy administrative work. It's not an easy drag-and-drop workflow type of model. It's hard to configure and customize. Axios claims that the new version will improve that, but I haven't seen that product. I hope they offer it in the next release.

Technical support could be improved.

If you look at any higher-end product when you're talking about more functionality and features, there are always a few bugs. I don't really blame the product for that. 

However, stability is also determined by the maintenance is done by the client. Some clients are not really maintaining the solution correctly, so there is the danger of stability issues. If it's properly managed, then stability is okay. 

It'd generally rate stability as four out of five.

The solution's architecture is definitely scalable. One of my clients has 60 to 70 technicians working on the product. A more affordable product may be something like BMC or even ServiceNow.

Technical support could still be improved. They have excellent support in other parts of the world, however, I been having some issues in our region. For example, our client in Oman needs to get support from Dubai. It's not bad, and they have brought in consultants from other sites to assist, but it needs work.

Tier 1 products, all ITSM products, will definitely require some support from the vendor. You can't download it from a site and install it. However, the initial setup is okay. New users need to be aware that first-time implementation will need assistance in order to properly get it up and running. In comparison to higher-end products, it's more difficult to install.

We're a consultant; we assist our clients in the installation process that is typically configured and installed by Axios.

While the solution is great for large enterprises, it's expensive, so it may not be feasible for smaller organizations.

The solution works on a subscription fee. It's not a monthly basis, but more about a one-time fee and then usage according to a variety of items. It's not like a cloud-based model where you pay every month. 

I'm a consultant. I have clients that use the solution. We use the on-premises deployment model. Typically, we deal with large-scale enterprises like banks.

The solution is very good.

My advice to people going with Assyst is that you need to make your process clear, as it is an architectural model product. Whatever you ask them to configure Axios will configure. That means you need to be clear about what process you want to configure and how the workflow should be. Then you just make sure you maintain it properly to keep it stable. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We used Assyst to apply ITIL processes for more than four years:

• Incident management 
• Service request management
• Change management
• Problem management
• Asset management
• Service level management

Then we started using it to manage our shared services center for HR, finance, facilities.

We applied the ISO 20000 standard using Assyst. It helps us to record all IT incidents and requests. Then we started using it to manage shared services including HR, facilities, finance.

• Great service catalog build
• Simple administration (service catalog building — process builder)
• Deep time tracking for each action taken 
• Pricing features
• CMDB features. 

• End-user interface
• The concept of the main request and its related tasks or decisions
• Reporting module
• CMDB integration
• Pricing for incidents 
• Knowledge management features.

this solution is very stable

it is scalable and its performance is good

the customer service is not good as expected but we can say its fair 

yes, we used CA service Desk then we used Microsoft Service Manager, we switched because we looked to cover more ITIL processes 

the initial setup just need support from the vendor and some experience with this kind of solutions after that you can do most of the administrative functions with your self

the implementation is done by the vendor team and they are expertise and very good knowledge with the solution

we got the benefits which we expected from this solution 

Assyst license has two types

one for end-users

and one for Support Staff

each one of them has the option of concurrent or dedicated license

you should know that 1 concurrent license covers up to 10 to 20 users

yes,

CA service desk

HP service Manager

Managengine Service desk

if you do not care about user interface and want a tool to apply ITIL Processes so you can use assyst

The main reason for the ERP project was to bring together our fourteen sites, which had until then worked in separate silos.

Prior to implementation, there was a good deal of change management and relationship building carried out in order to bring everyone along. The result was a big improvement in financial reporting, business processes, and overall communication.

The user interface in Apps 8 was the big seller.

The CRM was shaky and although this improves greatly in Apps 10.

The system is extremely stable. Crashes have been extremely rare.

The scalability of the system has worked very well for us

IFS Service is great. They are very responsive and have helped us out of a couple of holes.

The previous system was siloed which meant that there was no effective oversight over the whole business. It also meant that each site began to work in slightly different ways with varying processes. We switched in order to bring the entire organization together and unify as many processes as possible. We also wanted to achieve better financial reporting, which until this point had been based on aggregating SQL databases.

The initial set up was made simpler by our philosophy of getting the basic functionality rolled out to the business. Once this was done, we began to drill down into some more complex functions. Because of the way we worked, much of this exploration could be done by colleagues who by now were very experienced with the system.

We started with a vendor team and then continued with our in-house team once the UK was live.

We were privately held (now owned by another business) at the time of the project, so our ROI was more about bringing the business together and achieving better financial reporting. This has been achieved.

There are different ways to work with vendors depending on budget. We elected to use our UK location as the pilot site. We also decided to start small (ie with the base functionality) and grow into the system as the implementation rolled out. We paid for consultancy to workshop our main functions via video link in conjunction with all of our sites - a big task considering time zones.

The IFS functional consultants, armed with the information they needed, configured the system to meet our needs and we went live in the time allotted by the project plan. Once the UK was up and running, we rolled out to our other sites in sequence. We did not have enough resource to go big bang.

Doing things this way meant that our IT team learned the system pretty much inside out. They are able to deal with all but the most complex coding problems. It also saved us a huge amount of consultancy cost. The licensing is competitive and we have expanded the number of users over time as more people have wanted access to the system. Excluding the expanded user base, we managed to keep to about 10% above the original budget. There was some creep as the advantages of the system were realized by a wider audience and the culture of the business changed.

We sent out an RFI to the top 8 systems at our level of the market. We selected the three respondents that met our needs most effectively. They were MS Dynamics, Oracle and IFS. I put together a committee of 14 colleagues consisting of members from different sites and at least one from each main business function.

I then organised reference visits with each vendor in the UK, US, Italy, Singapore and Brazil, attended by local committee members.

After the visits, we had a meeting with all committee members at our office in Italy, where each of the 3 vendors took a day to demonstrate their system from end to end, answering questions along the way. 

On the 4th day of the meeting, the committee voted 12 to 2 in favour of IFS.

Apart from the pressures of meeting 14 go-live dates, this has been a very positive experience and has led to a streamlined and effective business. 

Our primary use case for Assyst was in a governmental institution here in Brazil around that time. It was a project, during which we spent some time traveling in Brazil and implementing solutions. It was government implementation.

The most valuable feature to us was the capability to quickly identify the tickets we have open with people and follow up then. It was very good. We could quickly understand what was going on and what the customer wanted to do. It's a nice feature.

I'm speaking in regards to the state of the IP in 2016, and I don't know how it has improved since that time. However, I would say that some kind of bot assistance, some kind of artificial intelligence to help people solve the problems, would be interesting.

We've used Assyst for two years.

We didn't have any problems at all with the stability of this solution.

Our maintenance is about 20 hours per month, or less. Maintenance was not significant. The product was a huge product, so we had a lot of people. When the product was in month two or three there were almost ten people. We are in 24 states here in Brazil, and a lot of offices were running at the same time. But if we're talking about just one company, even a big company, we had one or two people doing implementation.

And it wasn't a surprise in the private sector that at a big company or enterprise it would about three months of three people working.

Of course we had moments that we had to talk with the company in Edinburgh to solve some problems, and they had the answer. The answer was generally quick. We didn't usually have any problem with them. Sometimes the solution was more difficult, but not critical.

It was complex. The deployment was not a problem at all. The tool, on the whole, is very quick to set up. The problem was on the part of the customer, because they delayed a lot of things, and it was difficult to make the user respond to our questions and the needs of the project. If I compare with other solutions, the problem is that our system is too old. If you compare it with the service amount, we have a big difference in service. Now it's much better, of course. To improve the performance we had to review the accessory. It would be sometimes a radical modification.

Licensing is on an annual basis, with no additional costs.

When I came over to this company, it was decided that the product would be Assyst, so I didn't do any evaluation. However, if we had any bids with the other products Assyst unfortunately would have lost the bids.

Based on what I know, I would rate Assyst as an eight out of ten.

• Business analytics
• Financial report generation
• Ease of use
• Individual user profiles that can be configured as templates to minimize data entry
• Global search

I work as a systems integrator. Our client has benefited as follows:

• Reduced transaction time
• Better visibility
• Easier tracking
• More control on business and automation
• Better agility: The ability to move swiftly as times and market conditions change

This product is good for certain business verticals, every product has its strengths and weakness. They are fully aware of it. Thus, they only sell in industry verticals where their solution offering is very strong. However, the product is good enough for many more industry verticals and for use as a general ERP.

Areas were I would like to see improvements:

1. Workflow designing across application modules to reflect business workflow across departments.
2. Ability to place approval check-points in the custom workflow, so clients can decide what they want it.

We have used the solution since 2001.

We have not encountered any issues with stability.

We have not encountered any issues with scalability.

The technical support is generally good when you are subscribed to the Annual Maintenance and Support package. However, the global community is not good for support if you are looking for outside help.

As system integrators, we have switched companies from other products to IFS. We have also switched some companies from IFS to Oracle. Some of the reasons were:

• It is hard to find qualified IFS resources who can work as full-time client employees.
• Customization can only be done by IFS and not by the clients themselves.
• There are no development tools for clients even if they want to purchase.

The setup was very straightforward.

Conduct tough negotiations regarding price and services. It is better to buy implementation services from IFS than from partners. Not many partners have well qualified resources and are not formally trained on the latest product version.

We evaluated Oracle, SAP, Microsoft Dynamics, Epicor, and Sage.

It is better to buy implementation services from IFS than from partners.