IFS Cloud Platform Reviews

I used to be an implementation coordinator and after that, an IFS administrator in a big production company in Poland. Implementation included HR, Payroll, Finances, Production, CRM, sales, inventory, supply, projects, documentation, maintenance, and services, as well as quality management. 

We used almost all of the modules which were available when we signed an agreement at the end of 2015. I'm not working for the company now; however, as far as I know, there are plans to update IFS Applications 9 to IFS Cloud.

The company has owned an ERP system in which we had all data - not spread between small local systems (inventory, sales, finances) and lots of Excel files.

Since January 2017, when production took place, my company could put 99% of data into IFS Applications 9. The files/processes which were left outside IFS included an advanced price calculator, which was made in Excel, and a shipment list for in/outgoing trucks, which was shared with security (it changed in 2020 when our programmer prepared a dedicated internal website integrated with IFS to terminate this Excel list).

The most valuable aspects of the solution include customization like custom objects, events, and menus. They offer the best advantages. We were able to do lots of automatization and increased functionalities with light modifications by ourselves, saving lots of money.

Having a young talented programmer, during the six years of use, we were able to save around 75 000 EUR preparing simple modifications using customization rather than ordering them in IFS / Partner. The company management still believes that IFS with its flexibility is the best choice for companies that don't want to change all their processes in the way that an ERP system might require.

Aspects of HR and payroll could be better. Polish law is complicated, and users are demanding. In the Polish market, there are a lot of smaller HR/Payroll systems that are easier to use. While IFS is powerful, this is sometimes also a weakness as it could be easier to use, yet it wouldn't be so flexible and open for customization if they simplified it.

Some changes should be made in almost every module. However, it depends on process logic.                                                                                

I worked with IFS Applications 9 for six years. This year I've started to work for an IFS partner so now I'm getting familiar with the IFS Cloud.

IFS was installed on local server and it was very stable.

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

We never calculated ROI.

IFS is much cheaper than MS Dynamics or SAP solution, and it's more flexible so it is a very good choice for companies that don't want to be limited to making changes or only using a vendor company (causing very expensive changes). Licenses are also cheaper.

We also evaluated Microsoft Dynamics AX.

IFS is the best ERP solution for production companies.

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.

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.

Regarding use cases, it is another EM solution. I have some experience on the work order side of it, such as work order maintenance. The use cases are typically similar between Maximo or Hexagon EAM. However, Maximo can be very industry-specific, which I am not sure if IFS is industry-specific or not. I do not have much information about IUPIDS.

There are fewer fields on the user screen compared to other products. This makes the UI a little bit easier to understand. It also translates to the capabilities. If you have fewer fields on the screen or tabs, from a UI perspective, it's a little bit better.

I am not able to recall much about batch. Documentation-wise, they need more. There is not much available online, and the documentation availability is on the lower side compared to other products, especially Maximo.

There are some stability issues.

I am not able to recall much about support. Documentation-wise, they need more. There is not much available online, or the documentation availability is on the lower side compared to other products, especially Maximo.

Negative

I used it while I was the EAM consultant, so I was not the end user. I do not know about ROI.

Overall rating: six out of ten.

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. 

The most valuable feature is the distribution module.

An area for improvement would be transactions, which can be tedious to complete as the process is very complex.

I've been using this solution for five years.

We have had an issue that we don't get proper after-sale service when we get technical glitches.

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

The initial setup was complex.

I would rate IFS as five out of ten.

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 currently manage a project in the aerospace defense industry, focusing on precision manufacturing. Due to the industry's project-based nature, IFS Cloud Platform is crucial for planning and scheduling. Specifically, the platform's PSO component, which uses AI for manufacturing schedule optimization, is central to our operations.

The Platform has significantly improved due to its industry-specific design, which minimizes the need for customization and ensures better alignment with our requirements. This industry specificity and its evergreen model contribute to reduced failure rates in ERP implementations and ensure long-term sustainability.

The solution's most valuable features include the REST APIs for flexible integration with third-party systems and the dashboard elements for quick insights. The REST APIs facilitate seamless communication with suppliers and other systems, while the dashboard elements offer a comprehensive overview for decision-makers.

The solution's reporting tools still require improvement. The current functionality could be more user-friendly and flexible, which can lead to increased reliance on service partners for custom changes.

I have been working with IFS Cloud Platform for approximately three and a half years.

The platform is reliable and stable, with few issues impacting its performance. I rate the stability an eight. 

I rate the product scalability a seven. There is room for improvement in handling larger or more complex scale-ups.

The setup process was relatively straightforward compared to previous versions, with a successful end-to-end implementation completed in four and a half months.

The implementation was managed internally, and the process was efficient and well-executed.

The product is reasonably priced. The costs are justified by the value provided, considering the comprehensive features and minimal need for customization.

I rate the pricing a seven out of ten. 

I evaluated other options, including Infor.

Infor is a key competitor. Its warehouse management is noted for its strengths, but IFS Cloud offers a more integrated solution with fewer add-ons required, which is a significant advantage. 

IFS Cloud is preferred for its industry-specific design and integrated functionalities, which reduce the need for additional customizations and offer a more comprehensive solution than Infor.

I recommend IFS Cloud for its value for money and comprehensive feature set. However, potential users should be aware of reporting tool limitations and consider how these may impact their operations.

I rate it a seven out of ten.