I used SAP before. IFS is easier for clients to use. It's more user-friendly than other ERP systems. SAP is a higher-performing ERP solution that's good for large companies, but IFS is way cheaper. IFS is similar to SAP but with fewer finance features.

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 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.

I have used Epicor and SAP previously. In my experience, IFS Applications offer more flexibility than other systems, such as Epicor and SAP. It is easier to configure and customize to fit specific needs. I may be biased, but I believe that IFS Applications are more user-friendly in this regard.

IFS Applications are very flexible as a solution, which is one of its strong points. However, it can become challenging to maintain if it is customized too much. We were able to build solutions to meet specific needs that IFS Applications could not fulfill. In my previous organization, we developed a rental module that was so efficient and effective that the solution was incorporated into their core solution. This was a point of pride for us and showed the versatility of IFS Applications.

We did previously use small local systems with modules for inventory, finances, and customer orders.

I previously used SAP, which I prefer as it's less cumbersome than IFS. SAP also has better technical support.

We have used Fourth Shift which our manufacturing functions are still using. Fourth Shift is really ancient and looks like an 80s product without an advanced user interface. Our architecture is much more modern and easier to handle.

Prior to Assyst, we used BMC Remedy. We wanted something that was more packaged and OOTB vs custom building ourselves.

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.

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

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.

Before IFS, we used too many different products. We used one program for production, another for maintenance, and another for accounting. Even for the same part number, we used a different program. 

That's why we wanted to see everything in one place, so we chose IFS. So, it's everything under one umbrella, under one program.

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.

We did not use a different solution before purchasing this one.

We had a bespoke green screen-based ERP with limited functionality.

We changed solutions to get better functionality and a modern, supported platform to take us forward for the foreseeable future.