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.

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.

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.

We also evaluated Microsoft Dynamics AX.

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.

The choice really depends on the functions. Previously, we used Cornerstone but since some functions like DHL and HR require specialized use, we choose IFS. 

We evaluated ServiceNow, Ivanti, and Cherwell.

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.

yes,

CA service desk

HP service Manager

Managengine Service desk

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

Before choosing, we evaluated the other options.

We evaluated two other SAP products.

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.

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

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