IFS Cloud Platform Reviews

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 am employed in a Swedish company that sells cosmetics directly through bank partners and not through stores. We have many use cases of the solution in our company. The tool is mainly used for backend processes or backend services which include product development, HR, finance, supply chain, and warehousing.

When it comes to financing, the solution has helped us to concentrate finance functions like accounting processes in one system. This includes about 70 internal entities around the world.

The solution is an ERP system that incorporates more or less the standard features that are expected from such a tool. It would be very hard to pick out a feature that can be called special since the spend of the tool is so wide. None of the features are really perfect. It is one big compromise.

We have upgraded to the latest version right now. We have issues with the quality. We tried to enroll in their Evergreen program which was meant to help us adopt any service update or anything that the tool’s providers come up with. However, the tool always causes disruption to the business because of issues with quality, general compliance, and others. There is also the issue of missing functions. Some finance people would expect the invoicing behavior to be closer to SAP. They need to think about a different approach in advanced invoicing or something like that.

I also have issues with the quality of new releases. In the past, we had to upgrade only every four or five years. We expected it to be a big project. However, when we attempt to do every single update that pops up, it keeps us busy constantly.

I have been using this solution since 2020.

I would rate the stability of the solution a nine out of ten. The stability is quite okay since we have not experienced any blackouts, maybe two of them in India only.

I would rate the scalability of IFS Applications as a seven out of ten. This tool is used by about 500 users in our company. However, since we use the enterprise license, there is a case of live use where we can use the expense-approving features and more. Therefore, I expect almost every employee in my company to use the solution.

IFS Applications are multi-site systems where we can extend the usage by opening new sites. We don’t use many instances of the multi-site feature of IFS. However, I have seen it in the past.

We are rolling out HR, warehouse management, and perhaps manufacturing in the future. Therefore, there can be around 400 heavy users and thousands of light users for approving things. The number of users is expected to grow quite soon.

I have contacted tech support many times. The support is slow since some issues take ages to be taken care of. I would rate the support a five out of ten.

Neutral

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.

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.

In the beginning, we were cooperating with consultants who were regular local partners. However, we have quite a big expert base now. Therefore, the implementation is through internal consultants.

The deployment project team number can be either five, twenty or even three hundred members, and the users.

The additional cost that comes with the solution includes the overhead of the people who are trying to fix the tool issues. These people are trying to reproduce the issue and report it to the technical support and testing with them which is huge. It is the cost of quality in the end.

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. 

I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. We use the enterprise license which includes the maintenance fee. We do the maintenance by ourselves since we have experience in database and application services. There are around four people involved in the maintenance where three would be for support and the rest of them in projects.

I would advise anyone looking to use the solution to make use of initial consultancy as much as possible. Try to get the best consultants who can accelerate your knowledge from the beginning. Also, don’t go for the new releases too fast.

We are using Assyst in a Hybrid environment with Assyst app servers running in our own virtualized servers with the database and storage in Azure Cloud, which works well.

We use the system for IT Service Management across 16 ITIL v3 processes as part of a cohesive service management platform for delivering shared services for large organizations.

We integrate to Azure AD, LUIS/BOT Framework for insights and Virtual Agent support, as well as NetSuite for the asset, user, and billing interfaces.

Our focus is on process efficiency while ensuring a great customer experience.

Using this product allows us to standardize our approach to baseline improvement activities across business and IT process domains. The omnichannel capabilities allowed us to deploy a modern cross-channel delivery that we can manage from one pane of glass. The OOTB features provide support for many IT frameworks which we configured to meet our needs quickly. 

The OOTB analytics and in-tool BI charting allows analysts to really quickly assess historic and predicted scenarios to intelligently assess the situation so they can take the right actions 

ACE Omnichannel - Self-Service, Apps, Bot, Knowledge across devices, and personas. This has allowed us to divert resources away from answering phone calls on to more business valued initiatives. 

The workflow engine is very powerful and so is the service view CMDB. The design once - deploy anywhere is really good.

One of our favorite features is the "Info-Zone", which provides operational intelligence in flight and in context to guide both business users and support teams to productivity.

We would like to see AI-driven CSI functions built into the tool that would allow us to quickly tie our improvement goals to metrics and activities, so Assyst will suggest the next steps to help us get closer to our goals. 

Another area we would be interested in seeing is further support for MS Teams. We have used the APIs to work solutions but as soon as the graph APIs from Microsoft come out of Beta, we would love to see a packaged app here that is supported through upgrades like the rest of the Axios products. 

We have been using Assyst for five years.

No glitches actually. Our experience has been uneventful in that respect and we find the apps very stable.

This product is good for large organizations, with 2,500-250,000 employees.

Good phone local support and self-service as well. Good ( almost too much ) documentation.

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

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

Both vendor and in-house teams assisted us with deployment.

Our ROI is 4.5 times our investment in 18 months.

Ask for all-inclusive pricing, as they are pretty flexible if you ask for custom models. Don't underestimate the focus on content. A system on its own is as good as the data it can leverage like content, categories, and knowledge.

We evaluated ServiceNow, Ivanti, and Cherwell.

Definitely consider this offering. There are many features and options that come with it that don't require custom dev. They upgrade and are supported.

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.

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.

My organization only uses the finance module, but it depends on the modules your company needs.

The most valuable aspect for me is the finance module. I've worked with various companies, but I'm typically involved in finance. However, my previous position was with a utility company, so that involved distribution, HR, and the supply chain. 

All the modules are valuable in their own right, but everything has to go through the ERP. IFS has done an excellent job integrating the various modules to complete these processes. My expertise is in the finance module, but I have used the other verticals. It's an all-around good product.

I'm a business analyst, so I do a lot of customer-facing work. I take calls from businesses I have to troubleshoot. One thing that bugs me is the error messages you get from IFS. If I get an error message, I have to dig to find the cause because, often, the error message doesn't precisely describe the problem. It'll hint about where the problem lies, but you have to work to find the root cause. It doesn't help in my situation. You expect an error message to point to the field or what is causing the issue.

If they cleaned up their error messages, it would make things so much easier. Typically, an error message will focus on one field. It's one comment. Obviously, you don't want to see a lengthy message on the screen. I don't know if it's a translation issue because the organization is Swedish, but the wording of the messages isn't native English.

There's another issue for anyone using the system. IFS is based on companies. You create a company in the system called Company 100. When you bring on another plant or office, you need to make another company called Company 101. IFS has this popup box, so you need to be conscious of the company you're working with at any time. If you need to switch to another company, you must click on this right mouse button and say "Change company." It brings up a dialogue box with all the companies you can access; then, you put a checkmark in the box of the company you want to go to.

When people start using IFS, they have difficulty grasping this concept, but you constantly have to switch companies depending on what you're doing. I think everybody's in agreement that you have to go through this process. I don't know what they can do about it, but it causes issues. 

They do have a popup at the bottom of the screen that indicates which company you're working in. However, people don't always look at that when they are busy. They might start processing invoices in Company 100 when they should be working at Company 101. You have to manually switch companies, which frustrates users. I'm sure IFS has heard this over and over. 

When each user is set up, they're assigned a default company. My default company could be 100, so I start in Company 100 when I log into IFS, but if I have to do business with two other companies, I have to select the company and click back to the original company when I'm done. I can't say it's a minor thing because it causes a lot of frustration. 

I have been using IFS Applications for around 14 years.

I rate IFS nine out of 10 for stability. In the last 14 years, the only crashes or outages have been due to internal problems, not the application. For example, the first company ran IFS on an in-house server, and we had server issues. The application itself is solid. Any issues have been caused by hardware on our end or a server problem on the cloud platform where it's hosted. 

I rate IFS eight out of 10 for scalability. Each release has several updates before they bring out the new release. For example, my company is on version 10, update 7. Some of the issues or projects we want to do require us to be on update 19. At times, it isn't easy to go from update 7 to update 12

We have to check with IFS to see if we can automatically go from 7 to 12 and not have to implement the update incrementally. We contacted IFS, and they told us there are no significant code changes so we can go straight to 12. Sometimes, there are restrictions depending on the code that's been changed. Or they might have added new functionality that requires you to update step by step rather than make that big jump between updates.

The other day, we talked about going from 12 to 19, which is a significant jump. We're unsure if we can do that directly or if we must apply other updates along the way. You don't want the current processes affected by moving to a higher update. Our team has to do a lot of work to test all our processes in a test environment with 12. If you do it incrementally, you have to try each update.

When it's time to implement these updates, they should know what issues they might encounter. Not every customer will have the same problems. A lot of it comes down to customization. If we've requested modifications to the core system, that also factors into our testing. IFS is delivering the update to the core solution, but we have to consider custom fields, venues, pages, etc., that we have in place. We have to make sure that these work with the updates.

I rate IFS support eight out of 10. IFS technical support is excellent. Their 24/7 support center is based in Sri Lanka, but they have a North American support center in Michigan. They're responsive and available. Sometimes, we have to submit tickets to IFS because we can't figure out what's going on. For example, we might run into a problem during an upgrade, and we need to contact them to see if there's a bug fix or workaround. 

It's all based on severity and the terms outlined in the SLA. Critical incidents, like a system shutdown, get an immediate response, but they're a bit delayed for a medium-severity issue. You'll explain the problem to them in the ticket, and they'll eventually come back with a patch or some other fix. Sometimes they're not the quickest for mid-level stuff.

Overall, it's not an issue, but some cases are passed from one department to another, and it takes them a while to get back to us. The technical support is generally excellent. There might be room for improvement in how they handle case submissions. It seems to get bogged down a little bit.

Positive

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. 

IFS will assign specific resources to support your implementation, and your team doesn't change, so you know who you're dealing with. You work with the same people through the implementation unless someone goes on vacation or leaves the company. There's consistency in the team you work with. 

IFS is competitively priced. I've been in several selection processes where the company has narrowed it down to three or four ERPs. You go through a process where everybody has input. In all the evaluations I've been involved in, IFS has always come up as number one or two.

That's considering feedback from various departments like finance. Can we use it? Is it going to do what we want for, say, manufacturing? IFS has always been a top choice, and part of that is cost.

I rate IFS Applications eight out of 10. I have been using it for 14 years, so they're doing something right.

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 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.