IFS Cloud Platform Reviews

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. 

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.

I'm working on UPD 12 and IFS cloud applications. IFS has multiple product lines from ERP systems to Enterprise Asset Management and service management system. They also offer a maintenance module, provide operational inclusion software, and R&D. These are their main offerings. I have used this application in two industries, predominantly in manufacturing and aero defense. Both sectors have successfully deployed this solution. So far, we have good testimonies from Emirates Airlines, Lockheed Martin, and many other regional players who are into independent fleet management or MRO kind of services.

The best feature is the maintenance module, which is essentially an industry-specific workflow designed with a manufacturing module as per industry standards. It's very precise and specific without having complex functionalities. It's straightforward. Field Service Management is definitely a wonderful product that IFS has developed because it caters to field services. The energy and utility sectors can answer their business needs using the software.

The integration is a bit complex, and post-implementation support services need to be improved. They have a service center based out of Sri Lanka. The support aspect is good, but the response time is a little slower than we anticipated.

In the next release, it would be better if Warehouse Management could be improvised. They have a product line that's a data warehouse management system, but it's still premature and requires a bit of enhancement.

I have been working with IFS Applications for eight years.

It's a stable product and I would say that it's reliable.

Scalability is complex because of dependencies. For any core level modification, it's not that easy like other product lines because the OEM vendors give the choice of modifying the core. However, IFS doesn't appreciate modifying the core, and there's a restriction there. You really have to change the application to match the business requirements. It's a kind of a complex scenario. We have about 300 people currently using this solution.

Their post-implementation support is good but a little slower than anticipated.

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.

An integrator helped us to implement this solution. This product line is dependent on integrators, OEMs, and Windows because the resource pool isn't readily available. Reachability is less, and they have very limited resources available in the market. For any kind of support activities, either we have to rely on integrators or the vendor directly. However, we have a dedicated maintenance team within the company.

IFS Applications is expensive software, but it's on par with SAP and Oracle. It's for large enterprises and government entities and not for small and medium-sized enterprises. They have one licensing model, but if you want to have a module-specific license, they provide component-based licenses. Unlike SAP and Oracle, it doesn't have different levels of licensing. It's one level of licensing.

I would tell potential users that they need to consider change management because there could be a lot of resistance from the end-users because of the complexity of running this application. The output is very advanced, but you would really need to put in some effort to achieve that.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give IFS Applications a seven.

We used Assyst to apply ITIL processes for more than four years:

• Incident management 
• Service request management
• Change management
• Problem management
• Asset management
• Service level management

Then we started using it to manage our shared services center for HR, finance, facilities.

We applied the ISO 20000 standard using Assyst. It helps us to record all IT incidents and requests. Then we started using it to manage shared services including HR, facilities, finance.

• Great service catalog build
• Simple administration (service catalog building — process builder)
• Deep time tracking for each action taken 
• Pricing features
• CMDB features. 

• End-user interface
• The concept of the main request and its related tasks or decisions
• Reporting module
• CMDB integration
• Pricing for incidents 
• Knowledge management features.

this solution is very stable

it is scalable and its performance is good

the customer service is not good as expected but we can say its fair 

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

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 implementation is done by the vendor team and they are expertise and very good knowledge with the solution

we got the benefits which we expected from this solution 

Assyst license has two types

one for end-users

and one for Support Staff

each one of them has the option of concurrent or dedicated license

you should know that 1 concurrent license covers up to 10 to 20 users

yes,

CA service desk

HP service Manager

Managengine Service desk

if you do not care about user interface and want a tool to apply ITIL Processes so you can use assyst

• Business analytics
• Financial report generation
• Ease of use
• Individual user profiles that can be configured as templates to minimize data entry
• Global search

I work as a systems integrator. Our client has benefited as follows:

• Reduced transaction time
• Better visibility
• Easier tracking
• More control on business and automation
• Better agility: The ability to move swiftly as times and market conditions change

This product is good for certain business verticals, every product has its strengths and weakness. They are fully aware of it. Thus, they only sell in industry verticals where their solution offering is very strong. However, the product is good enough for many more industry verticals and for use as a general ERP.

Areas were I would like to see improvements:

1. Workflow designing across application modules to reflect business workflow across departments.
2. Ability to place approval check-points in the custom workflow, so clients can decide what they want it.

We have used the solution since 2001.

We have not encountered any issues with stability.

We have not encountered any issues with scalability.

The technical support is generally good when you are subscribed to the Annual Maintenance and Support package. However, the global community is not good for support if you are looking for outside help.

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.

The setup was very straightforward.

Conduct tough negotiations regarding price and services. It is better to buy implementation services from IFS than from partners. Not many partners have well qualified resources and are not formally trained on the latest product version.

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

It is better to buy implementation services from IFS than from partners.

Customer use the solution for complete CRM.

The solution's maintenance and customer relationship management are best. CRM  is integrated with Outlook. You can click the record directly in the system and update the client simultaneously. It's also very user-friendly.

IFS is a Tier 1 ERP,  We are using IFS Cloud Platform as a partner for one and a half years. We are using release 22R2 of the solution.

The tool is stable if it's appropriately implemented as a standard solution and according to the client's needs.

I rate the solution's stability an eight out of ten.

The solution is highly scalable.

Many small businesses are using this solution.

I rate the solution's scalability a ten out of ten.

Technical support is better

Neutral

The solution's deployment is dependent on the regions. In some regions, companies prefer a cloud environment, but in heavy industry and factories where the manufacturing of products is done, they deploy it on-premises.

For the customer, the tool is very scalable and easy to use.

I am using IFS Applications for the finance module applications and also for all of the submodules in finance such as AR/AP. It covers all of the finance areas.

The most valuable features of IFS Applications are their intuitiveness and ease of use. The navigations are also straightforward, which makes it easy to train users. The feedback I always receive is that it is very user-friendly.

IFS Applications can improve the reporting capabilities and increase the speed of feedback time in the IFS Applications. This would help with the overall performance of the solution and provide better experiences for customers.

One idea is to expand the areas of operation for the product. There was also an internal case study that looked at the possibility of adding a feature for internal offsetting between different companies within a group. This would allow for the offsetting of debts and balances between the companies, rather than having each company make separate payments. It's called cash flow offsetting. It would've been a great addition to our current systems IFS Applications. Unfortunately, the feature is not currently available.

I have been using IFS Applications for approximately 10 years.

In the on-premise version of the solution we had not experienced a lot of downtimes, but there are many other factors involved with the on-premise version's infrastructure that could cause downtime not related to the actual solution. The cloud version has been very stable.

I rate the stability of IFS Applications a nine out of ten.

IFS Applications is highly scalable. This is not only its ability to handle large volumes of data but also in terms of its ability to add new modules and features over time. IFS Applications has a lot of sub-modules to choose from, which can be confusing to navigate, but it also provides the capability to add new components if needed. Additionally, the solution can be localized for new countries as needed, which allows for a high level of flexibility and capability.

We have approximately 4,000 users using this solution across the globe.

Whether we use the solution on a daily basis depends on the specific module, but for many users, it is used on a daily basis. However, for management-level users, it may be used less frequently. For those who are responsible for inputting transactions, it would be a daily task. 70 percent of users are using the solution on a daily basis.

I rate the scalability of IFS Applications a nine out of ten.

We have had multiple interactions with the technical support team, particularly for issues related to bugs or similar technical problems. 

The support is good overall but they can improve the speed of providing solutions. The speed has been improving over recent years, but there could still be a faster solution, which would be beneficial in the future.

I rate the support from IFS Applications a seven out of ten.

Neutral

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.

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.

I would advise others to be cautious in choosing the individuals or companies responsible for implementing the system. It is important to have experts with the domain experience to ensure a successful implementation. Additionally, having the right people on board is crucial to ensure that the system is set up and used correctly. I would recommend finding the right team to make the implementation process as successful as possible.

I rate IFS Applications an eight out of ten.

Our client primarily uses the solution for IT service management as well as business service management. 

The service catalog is a really good aspect of the solution. It offers incident management, problem management, change management, and a self-service portal among other features.

The workflow of the solution is very good. 

The foundational architecture is also impressive. The whole service management side of it is based on the CMDB. That concept is really strong in their product.

The product requires heavy administrative work. It's not an easy drag-and-drop workflow type of model. It's hard to configure and customize. Axios claims that the new version will improve that, but I haven't seen that product. I hope they offer it in the next release.

Technical support could be improved.

If you look at any higher-end product when you're talking about more functionality and features, there are always a few bugs. I don't really blame the product for that. 

However, stability is also determined by the maintenance is done by the client. Some clients are not really maintaining the solution correctly, so there is the danger of stability issues. If it's properly managed, then stability is okay. 

It'd generally rate stability as four out of five.

The solution's architecture is definitely scalable. One of my clients has 60 to 70 technicians working on the product. A more affordable product may be something like BMC or even ServiceNow.

Technical support could still be improved. They have excellent support in other parts of the world, however, I been having some issues in our region. For example, our client in Oman needs to get support from Dubai. It's not bad, and they have brought in consultants from other sites to assist, but it needs work.

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.

We're a consultant; we assist our clients in the installation process that is typically configured and installed by Axios.

While the solution is great for large enterprises, it's expensive, so it may not be feasible for smaller organizations.

The solution works on a subscription fee. It's not a monthly basis, but more about a one-time fee and then usage according to a variety of items. It's not like a cloud-based model where you pay every month. 

I'm a consultant. I have clients that use the solution. We use the on-premises deployment model. Typically, we deal with large-scale enterprises like banks.

The solution is very good.

My advice to people going with Assyst is that you need to make your process clear, as it is an architectural model product. Whatever you ask them to configure Axios will configure. That means you need to be clear about what process you want to configure and how the workflow should be. Then you just make sure you maintain it properly to keep it stable. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.