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.

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.

The solution's initial setup process was complex.

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.

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

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

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

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

The initial setup was complex.

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.

I have experience with the implementation of IFS version 2003. We have been upgrading this solution and have experience with every second major version.

I would rate the implementation of the solution somewhere around seven and eight. I wouldn’t say that there is anything special about their implementation. There is the documentation methodology and consultants for it.

We don’t host a single server. It is outsourced to a third party. Everything is hosted either in the hosting center, Azure, or IFS which we rented as a service. It is really hard to comment on the time taken for deployment since it varies based on implementation and upgrade. Moreover, the projects run around the year. The time taken for deployment depends on whether you are installing the solution in one warehouse or in warehouses around the world.

The steps that we take for the deployment of the solution include pre-study, feasibility study, designer bills, user testing, and the ‘go live’ step.

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

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 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.

I rate IFS seven out of 10 for ease of setup. IFS has done a great job on the documentation. The setup's complexity depends on the implementation you're doing. We originally had IFS on in-house servers then they migrated to the cloud. There are different setups, so the deployment will also vary depending on the version you're using, but they're excellent at leading you through the implementation process and making their resources available to help you. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 setup was very straightforward.

The initial setup was okay. There were no problems during the process. 

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.

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.

The initial setup or implementation was a little more complex than I expected. We purchased a pre-configured version.

The initial implementation was more complex than expected. We purchased a pre-configured version. We were told that it would fit our business model.

During implementation, it was found to be inadequate. Additional configuration changes had to be made throughout the implementation phase.

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.

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.

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.