IFS Cloud Platform Reviews

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.

We use it for all our company's needs, including finance, accounting, and production.

We just started using it this year, so it's still being worked on and isn't the best fit for our company yet. We need more time to evaluate it properly.

There might be a need for better training or support for users or improvements in the application's usability or functionality because we initially faced some difficulties when we started using it.

I have been using IFS Applications for four months. 

We have around 200 users.

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.

The initial setup was okay. There were no problems during the process. 

It's not cheap compared to its competitors.

Overall, I would rate the solution a six out of ten. We faced some difficulties when we started using it. It could be because of our consultant.

IFS Applications is based on industry standards that are using a multi-tier deployment model. This makes it much easier to integrate IFS Applications with other enterprise software packages.

The user interface of IFS applications is easy to learn and move around. The interface is based on the latest technology and offers many features for filtering, searching and navigating.

IFS Applications is based on open architecture. It uses component-based service-oriented architecture (SOA) built on open standards. The application’s component-based architecture has allowed us to develop in-house and tailor the system to suit our needs.

It reduces the need for customization and can easily be modified by our developers.

With IFS Applications, we have a solution that can be tailored to match the demands of our projects.

We have been using this product for 12 years.

We have never had any scalability issues.

For extreme scalability and reliability, IFS supports deployment models ranging
from small servers to large, high-performance database servers with multiple applications servers running in parallel.

I rate the level of customer service a good 8/10.

I rate the level of technical support a good 6/10.

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

The initial setup or implementation was a little more complex than I expected. We purchased a pre-configured version.

This software is sold under a user-based pricing model. This includes access to all the modules of the system, which you can turn on or off for each user based on security.

If you only need a limited amount of functionally now and in the future, buying a module-based system will usually save you money. However, module-based pricing will limit the scalability of your ERP system. For many companies, user-based pricing is often a better value and a better investment – you get more for your money and room to grow.

Before choosing, we evaluated the other options.

IFS Applications contains a number of features including financials, CRM, quality management, human resources, document management, business intelligence and more...

Using pre-packaged process solutions, IFS maps your business processes to functionality that already exists within IFS Applications. By only using the best functionality from IFS Applications, you get a comprehensive off-the-shelf solution with fewer modifications.

Pricing matrix and warehouse functionality.

• Pricing Matrix: Allowed us to implement a very complex "go to market" pricing model. This allowed us to tailor pricing to individual customer requirements. We could implement an automated pricing model that maximized gross profit in a very competitive environment.
• Warehouse Functionality: In ERP terms is rich, allowing us to run three separate businesses in a shared warehouse environment.

It has enforced process discipline within the business. This led to increased efficiencies and reduced errors. At the same time, it gave business visibility to operational and senior management.

Usability could be improved.

My time with the product has spanned two years. There was eighteen months during the implementation process, and six months after go-live.

The product is generally stable. It is no better or worse that other ERP packages that I have used.

We have only had scalability issues in terms of hardware. The product scales well. However, the original hardware requirements were not specified high enough to meet the number of users. We increased disk I/O on the server to resolve this issue.

Local Australian based support is good. This consists mainly of product consultants, subject matter experts, and project managers.

As the product is developed overseas, customization that requires programming takes longer than originally expected.

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.

The initial implementation was more complex than expected. We purchased a pre-configured version. We were told that it would fit our business model.

During implementation, it was found to be inadequate. Additional configuration changes had to be made throughout the implementation phase.

Both the pricing and licensing need to be negotiated up front. If possible, include future expansion plans in terms of additional users and modules. The best discounts are applied at the initial purchasing stage.

We evaluated two other SAP products.

I would advise that you include a "Fit/Gap analysis" workshop as part of the evaluation process. This may add to the cost, but will reduce the number of issues that need to be resolved during the project implementation.

Our primary use case for Assyst was in a governmental institution here in Brazil around that time. It was a project, during which we spent some time traveling in Brazil and implementing solutions. It was government implementation.

The most valuable feature to us was the capability to quickly identify the tickets we have open with people and follow up then. It was very good. We could quickly understand what was going on and what the customer wanted to do. It's a nice feature.

I'm speaking in regards to the state of the IP in 2016, and I don't know how it has improved since that time. However, I would say that some kind of bot assistance, some kind of artificial intelligence to help people solve the problems, would be interesting.

We've used Assyst for two years.

We didn't have any problems at all with the stability of this solution.

Our maintenance is about 20 hours per month, or less. Maintenance was not significant. The product was a huge product, so we had a lot of people. When the product was in month two or three there were almost ten people. We are in 24 states here in Brazil, and a lot of offices were running at the same time. But if we're talking about just one company, even a big company, we had one or two people doing implementation.

And it wasn't a surprise in the private sector that at a big company or enterprise it would about three months of three people working.

Of course we had moments that we had to talk with the company in Edinburgh to solve some problems, and they had the answer. The answer was generally quick. We didn't usually have any problem with them. Sometimes the solution was more difficult, but not critical.

It was complex. The deployment was not a problem at all. The tool, on the whole, is very quick to set up. The problem was on the part of the customer, because they delayed a lot of things, and it was difficult to make the user respond to our questions and the needs of the project. If I compare with other solutions, the problem is that our system is too old. If you compare it with the service amount, we have a big difference in service. Now it's much better, of course. To improve the performance we had to review the accessory. It would be sometimes a radical modification.

Licensing is on an annual basis, with no additional costs.

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.

Based on what I know, I would rate Assyst as an eight out of ten.

We provide the implementation for our clients.

IFS is an ERP, that is globally ranked number four. It's a master's in enterprise management and foodservice management. 

Globally, we are doing multiple projects with many of our clients, but most of these projects are coming as a transformation to digital. As a part of the digital transformation journey, we need to understand the cloud solution as well.

We work in the four segments and we agree with the enterprise solution in the workplace.

The following are the four segments we work with:

1. Aerospace & Defense
2. Manufacturing
3. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
4. Enterprise Asset Management (EAM)

Some of the strengths are Enterprise Management Solutions and the series of Management solutions which is number one in Gartner's report and has been for the last five years.

This solution is very versatile, and it's very flexible.

There are certain digital features that need to be incorporated, such as IOP. It's a blockchain platform. We are currently exploring these types of features to enhance our solutions for added value for our clients. 

Pricing is an area that could be improved. They could be more competitive.

We have been providing this product for more than three years.

We provide the latest version, but there are some clients who are working on older versions and want to transform them into the new version. 

It's a conversion to the new versions, along with the digital transformation especially in the manufacturing sector. 

They want some kind of new technology to come up and add some value to them. That's a part of the journey for digital transformation.

It's a stable product, but depending on the clients, there are times where upgrades are required for custom development.

It's a scalable product. We can scale it easily and it is not a problem.

We provided services for all types of clients. We deal with very large clients to small growing clients as well.

This solution is suitable for any size of company and there are no constraints.

There are times where we require technical support. Most of the time we provide our clients with support.

The initial setup is not complex. It's easier than other IOPs.

The time for deployment depends on the client's requirements, and the scope of the project, but on average, it takes three to six months for deployment.

We have a team to implement and maintain and support this solution for our clients.

It's not cheapest, and it's not mediocre pricing. 

Pricing is comparatively or sufficiently higher than maybe all other IT solutions.

There are no additional fees, and everything is included in the license.

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

Definitely, I would recommend this solution to others.

The solution from IFS is one of the best solutions and I would rate it a seven out of ten.

We work in the four segments: aerospace and defense, manufacturing, EPTA (enterprise) which is contracting and sub-contracting, and enterprise management. We offer enterprise solutions in the client's workplace. 

The enterprise management solutions within the solution are very strong. It's been listed as number one in the Gartner Report for the last five years. They really are at the top of their game.

The solution overall is very versatile and flexible, especially compared to other products.

As a salesperson, my perspective is limited. Someone from a development team may have more insights into which features may be lacking.

It would be ideal if, in the future, the product could incorporate IoT and blockchain elements. We'd like to explore more of these types of features going forward. We feel they could enhance our client experience and add value to our own solutions.

The pricing could be a bit better. It's a little high.

I've been dealing with the solution for three years at this point.

The solution is very stable. Even if we have to do upgrades or customized development, it performs well. We don't find there are issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

Scalability isn't a problem at all. It's very easy to do if a company needs to expand the solution.

In a large majority of cases, we handle the technical support for our clients. It's been very rare where we would need to reach out to IFS technical support to get assistance with problems.

The initial setup isn't too complex. In fact, it's pretty simple. It's straightforward.

The length of time it takes to deploy depends on the client's requirements and the scope of the project. On average, it takes about two to six months to deploy.

I haven't personally handled the implementation, however, as I am more on the sales-side.

We handle the maintenance on behalf of our clients as necessary.

The solution is not cheap. It's competitive, however, it's a bit higher than other options on the market. Everything is included in the license. You don't have to purchase additional features beyond that.

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

We have to work with the latest version of the solution. However, there are some clients who are working on the old versions and they want to perform on the new versions. Occasionally, there is conversion onto new versions. 

Along with the digital transformation, clients are especially in the manufacturing sector. They want some kind of new technology to come up and add some value to them. That's a part of the journey for digital transformation.

We are currently exploring the cloud, even though we mostly work with the on-premises deployment model.

The solution is suitable for all sizes of business. We have solution working for big clients as well as for small, growing clients.

Overall, I would recommend the solution. It's one of the best on the market and is well known.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.