IFS Applications Reviews

The solution is an ERP. I work for multiple clients, and all of those clients are in different sectors. I do see most businesses take it on and use it as a full business management suite of software. It covers every aspect from human resources through to any operational purchasing, buying, contract, and project management and full finance and reporting suites.

For the most part, in all of my experiences with IFS, when a company embarks on using an ERP of this significance, it tends to be the main tool the business then aligns itself with and uses to run.

The software itself is extremely strong and IFS is one of the best I've worked with in terms of listening to a user base and modifying and adapting the software under different releases to improve. There tends not to be a massive weakness in the product itself, as weaknesses historically could be quickly resolved in the next patch or the next release.

It's also highly customizable by the clients themselves. If you use software and you find a weakness, you have the ability with the right technical skills to be able to modify that software in a bespoke way to fit your own company needs, so it tends to not really have any weaknesses on that side.

From a user perspective, the fact that it has fully open APIs and it is very customizable is, or at least was, quite unique to IFS from an ERP software industry which is usually more locked down. Historically you bought the software, and if you wanted to make a change to that software, you maybe needed another field or another page or a function, you would request that to be developed by the software developer itself. You would pay them for it, they would release it, and it would take many, many months. Then, you may also pay them to maintain that since it's outside of the core build. With IFS, going back to around Application 9, if I don't like what a field's called, I can change its name or I can add new fields, new pages, and new functions myself, within reason.

Most businesses will have elements that are unique to them. ERP generally in the past was one size should fit all. For some companies, especially companies that really believe in their own uniqueness, that can sometimes be a problem. IFS addresses that wonderfully by saying, "Well actually, if you don't like that column being there, you have the ability to just right mouse and remove it. And if you want to add a new one, you can do this."

That's a massive feature for usability. In terms of the most recent cloud-based software IFS has again been quite forward-thinking in modernizing the way that ERP works. They moved more towards almost like a phone model, in that every few months, it'll have new software updates and deployments with optional new features.

What IFS has done with IFS Cloud is shake up the industry again a little bit by saying, "Well, we're not going to build any more versions of it. Instead, you buy IFS cloud, that's your core platform, and we will release bi-annual updates that you can opt into."

I'm a big fan of the fact that they lead. It's nice to see software with a modern mentality coming out to actually say, "We think we should do things differently." 

IFS is a very large and complex software, and implementation of IFS can be challenging and may lead to a difficult lengthy project. It can take between 12 and 24 months in some cases to deploy. I have found that not all clients are fully aware of how big the task is that they're undertaking when they make a decision to move to software like this.

Companies need to be more aware of the complexity of an ERP implementation project and while I fully recommend moving to IFS, it is not easy and does require business change when adopting an ERP solution. 

New features are a difficult ask - I work across multiple industries and everyone would probably choose a different feature. Maybe BIM in Construction or Customs link-ups for importers/exporters.

I've been using the solution for approximately 25 years.

I'd rate stability a nine out of ten. 

IFS itself is extremely strong and stable. But like most modern software of any size, it can depend on your own internal strengths and networks. Something else that can and should be analyzed at the start of a project.

The solution is highly scalable. I'd rate it a ten out of ten in terms of the ability to expand. 

I'm working with three different companies that are using the solution. The user base would be around 1,400 on average performing more than 100 transactions per user per day but this is a tiny fraction of the system's capabilities. 

I have contacted technical support in the past.

The solutions to the problems, when they come, are, as you would expect, 100% accurate and correct. However, there can be a time delay in terms of you logging a case rather than talking to them directly.

You give the case priority. They will then review it and may reprioritize it. Therefore, I may have to wait a lot longer for a fix than I would like to but there is strong documentation, online help, and a good user community so a large number of issues can be resolved internally without the need for support contact. If it were a critical issue, IFS would respond instantly too so there is comfort in knowing that.

Neutral

Deploying the system, installing the servers, and getting everything set up like that - as long as you've got technical resources around you, you can do that stuff pretty easily. 

It's a difficult thing to score really - I'll give it an eight out of ten as, if you have the right resources, deployment is simple but deploying and stabilizing the software is just a small step in actually being able to run a business on it.

The reality of an ERP implementation is that you're coming in to essentially take over a whole business, and the most complicated part of that is aligning software with business processes. People that have never used the software before have processes that are not necessarily aligned out of the box. There are potentially changes in terminology and changes to processes so synchronizing between the software and the company that's now chosen to use it, can be difficult.

The deployment time will obviously depend on the business. Usually, things like the size of the user base come into play. Mostly the biggest factor is the appetite for it outside of the boardroom. On average, deployment to being fully live is probably 12 to 14 months but it will be different for every company.

There is an ROI. However, it's a long-term investment. You're unlikely to see a large return on investment within probably the first two years as your business aligns with the software.

There will be other quick wins though, some financial, but larger ROI will come further down the line.

There can be a significant outlay at the beginning, not just in the software itself and the user licenses but also in terms of things like the potential consultancy to help you run a project and get it in. After two to three years you'll begin to note an ROI though.

Pricing is relatively negotiable with companies like IFS. There is a fixed idea of what a license price would be however, if you have a significant amount of users, you might be able to negotiate it down. I would approximate the general cost to be somewhere around 1,000 to 1,200 pounds per user annually.

I'd rate the solution a seven out of ten in terms of affordability. I think the price is fair and reasonable based on what you get. 

There can also be additional fees too - there may be charges for maintenance, security, and support. None of these charges are hidden though and would all be very clear at the point of making a decision as to whether to use IFS or not.

When choosing software like this, you always evaluate other similar software before committing. As an example, I have one client that ran a full tender process across five or six different ERP providers, IFS being one of them. That included SAP and a few other big names in the industry, including Microsoft, JD Edwards, Infor, and NetSuite.

They chose IFS due to scalability, user experience, and how it aligned with their business. While the other software were perfectly strong at what they did individually, IFS outscored them all in all areas of that tender.

The reason for changing to new software was that age-old problem of having multiple systems not really talking to each other and needing that one view of everything, that one version of the truth. 

Another client I have worked with basically ran their business on Microsoft Excel, other than finance software and they just wanted to modernize. They were working in an industry where a few other companies in the industry were also using IFS, and their natural networks made IFS a topic of conversation and eventually, a choice.

I'm fully independent of IFS.

While I've been a user of IFS for 25 years, for the last four or five years, I've worked in a consultancy role, not for them, but independently helping companies use it. I tend to use multiple versions of the software, often at the same time. At the moment, I use version Application 9, and Application 10, and I also use IFS Cloud, the most recent version.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

I believe in its strengths. However, I'm also aware that there's always room for improvement with everything in life. Generally, IFS is very, very strong, multi-industry and it will genuinely do what a good ERP is meant to do. IFS also offer a good service in terms of support and there is a strong network of partners and independent companies of IFS experts available for advice and support.

The main advice would be to ensure you are fully aware of what you are embarking on with any ERP project, including IFS.

Realistically, if a client is confident and set on implementing IFS, it's important they understand it's not a three-month project. It's could be up to two years, depending on the company. That means cost, challenges but nothing good comes easy.

The software itself I'm very, very confident in. It's robust. It's very secure, it's very customizable, and it's very user-friendly. 

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.

We were in an MRP manufacturing environment, and as time and technology moved on in the mid-2000s, it was time to move up to a true ERP system. It was pretty much a no-brainer to use IFS. We looked in the marketplace and found that IFS matched what we did as a project company, and that's how I got started in IFS. I've never really touched another ERP system.

We have the standard package and most of the modules. We don't do any MRO, and we don't have the vehicle package or fleet maintenance. 

We're using version 10. The solution is deployed on a public cloud through AWS.

We have more than 500 regular users.

We have plans to implement IFS in other areas. We have a new company that can leverage areas of IFS that we're not fully into.

We use configure to order and dynamic order processing very heavily. We have a highly configurable product, and configuring the product into IFS is super handy. It's really fast, and it makes it easy for the end user to get really large and very complicated orders in. That's probably one of the biggest efficiencies.

The financial posting controls are quite handy. The user interface is really friendly, highly flexible, and pretty intuitive for end users.

It works as expected for a regular ERP. From a reasonably complex implementation, I think IFS is right there with anybody else. They do everything very well. They have very standard business practices. It's all in there, and it's really how I have learned how businesses are really run. I just look at the models that IFS puts in front of me.

The next version has already been released, and some of the technical things are a little bit behind the curve in development. This is specifically security, maintenance, security role maintenance, and creation. This is in their new product, called IFS Cloud.

They've significantly changed the user interface and how the entire package is presented to both tech users and regular end users. They've gone to a thin client instead of their own client. There doesn't seem to be a focus on some of the maintenance and technical areas that users like me would use from the IT point of view.

These are areas that I've only seen in demonstrations. In version 10, which we're using now, everything is in good shape.

I have used this solution for 17 years.

I would rate the stability as nine out of ten. It's extremely stable. I can't remember the last time we had an issue.

I would rate the scalability as 10 out of 10. It's very scalable for multi-companies and multi-currency.

Technical support is very customer focused and does their best. Because our implementation is quite complex, some of our issues might take longer to document, but in general the support at IFS is pretty top-notch.

I would rate setup as eight out of ten.

Implementing IFS isn't that hard. It's pretty straightforward to get data into IFS. As with all implementations, the difficulty is understanding or loosening users up from the current thought processes and getting them more situated into best practices and slightly different ways of doing things with the same outcome. I'm in the middle of an implementation now, and IFS can do what is needed across the board. As always with the implementations, it's tough with training users and their experience. As far as the actual implementation of the system, given the data, it's pretty straightforward.

The nice thing about IFS is that the IT types can make the learning curve less steep, given the features that are in IFS. One of the cool features is that you can configure the interface and pre-position or pre-save corporate-wide queries. There are things you can do and push out to all users or some users, depending on how you manage the system.

There are some things that IT can do to make it simple for people who just want to do their job and go home. Some things can be configured and pushed out to users that make their daily lives a lot easier. They don't need to be experts in IFS or experts in the system at all. They can be a light user and still be very productive.

We just upgraded from version 9 to 10. It took a full weekend. We uplifted the whole database into the new Oracle. We have a lot of data, so it took a weekend, but that's probably the worst case scenario. In some implementations, there are mods from IFS that are formally part of their package but not part of the production version out of the box. I don't think it would be that long because you'd get the package, but it's just a little bit more difficult to manage as you get your executables, install them, and test them. Those modifications need a significant amount of testing over the usual out-of-the-box solution.

You don't need that many people to deploy the solution. You might need two people, but it boils down to one person in each expertise area. You need one person in Oracle and then someone who is going to install all of the executables that are actually IFS. On top of that, you end up with your IT team that interfaces with the users. It just depends on how many users you have, how technical your implementation is, and how many people you need to support all those people and the level of implementation complexity.

We did it in-house, but we have a third party that helps us on the DBA side to lift us and do all of the Oracle stuff.

We have seen return on investment with IFS.

There are varying license levels that you can purchase. I don't know that we've taken advantage of the license levels for regular users. They offer various packages. If a license isn't really needed, there are ways of working around it.

There's a dedicated license for people who just punch in and out and don't need to access IFS. It's a good implementation that has a return on investment, so those license fees are well worth it.

We evaluated two different solutions. A new company that's part of our enterprise was using Great Plains, which is Microsoft. They went through a formal process to help them understand what their best solution would be going forward.

They also looked at Salesforce and some other ERPs that would support a sales and service function. At the end of the day, once they started checking the boxes and seeing functionality, they landed on IFS as the better solution.

On top of the solution that actually matched their needs or company, they would have a huge step forward because of the already built knowledge of IFS. There are about 10 different companies between Canada and the US that are supported by one IFS team.

I would rate IFS as nine out of ten. My advice is to use IFS as intended. Don't go off the path. Really consider your business practices. Can they be changed? Is there a reason why they can't be modified slightly? Is the end result going to be the same? Those types of things sometimes cause people to get modifications that don't get them very far.

If I was going to change jobs, they would have to be using IFS.

We are using IFS Applications for HR, payroll, finance, and supply chain manufacturing. We use quite a lot of the modules.

The most valuable features of IFS Applications in the latest version are the new user Arena interface. It's from Apps 9, but it brings more flexibility in usage, especially around different devices, such as mobile usage, which doesn't restrict you from using a computer. We are it for the HR side, and it's proving quite good. It has a new modern feel to it similar to a standard cloud application which enhances the user experience.

There should be some improvements in the predefined templates in IFS Applications.

I have been using IFS Applications for approximately 11 years.

The stability of IFS Applications modules has been mixed. We use the payroll module in a niche area, and it has not been very stable in the past. However, the newer version 10 is much more stable. The finance, supply chain, and manufacturing modules have been generally stable. It is important to note that any issues we have experienced with IFS Applications have been a result of our own setup rather than the fault of the solution. It is a case of "junk in, junk out."

We have implemented three robust backups and have new infrastructure and data centers in place. I have not experienced any issues with the solution since these changes were made.

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

IFS Applications is a scalable solution. Our business model is that we are a single-site user of IFS Applications, although our parent company uses SAP. If we needed to scale up our use of IFS Applications, we have an in-house team that can handle it from a technical and infrastructure standpoint. It would not be a problem.

We have approximately 542 users using this solution and we plan to increase our usage with HR to 1,000 users.

I rate the scalability of IFS Applications an eight out of ten.

The technical support could improve. My experience with IFS Applications support has been mixed. While we were using an older version, I felt that IFS was more interested in us paying to upgrade rather than providing support for the solution. If we had any issues or problems, we would often turn to a third party or partner for support rather than IFS Applications, unless it was a core bug in the solution. We have experienced yearly payroll updates with bugs that took a long time to resolve. In terms of technical support, I have used IFS for multiple roles over the past five or six years and have always found the support to be mediocre.

In the past, there was a lack of communication or miscommunication with the support. I always provided feedback on this issue to the support teams. The account managers I dealt with were not customer-focused and were more concerned with meeting their own targets. They were not helpful in achieving long-term goals or building long-term relationships. They would often insist on immediate payment and a quick turnaround on documents or quotes, rather than trying to find a solution to our problems. This was not a productive or helpful approach, and it felt like they were more interested in their own needs rather than ours as paying customers.

I have a very strong team managing this solution so that we don't need to go to IFS Applications, other than break/fix if there's a fundamental problem of the application.

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

Neutral

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

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

The initial setup of IFS Applications was difficult due to the minimal usage at the time. My organization first implemented IFS Applications in 2012, and it was a very basic version. Many processes were carried out using spreadsheets and other systems. In order to upgrade to the latest version (version 10 at the time), we had to completely re-implement the solution and define processes and documents, as it involved 2B processes.

The business change was more challenging than the solution itself because we couldn't simply upgrade it without any value or return on investment. The solution had issues with data accuracy and governance controls, as it was not well-maintained or well-governed. We implemented frameworks and standards to address these issues, and we also had to go through a proper channel and due diligence process for any changes due to validation requirements. With version 10 running, we have mostly direct processes on the system without the use of spreadsheets. The reporting and data input coming from the system, and we can use it to demonstrate accuracy for audits by the FDA or MHRA as a single source of truth.

Another issue with IFS is the difficulty in obtaining validated status for a cloud solution. If we host the solution on our own servers, we can qualify the hardware, servers, and operating system ourselves and maintain control over it. However, if IFS Applications moves to use AWS or Azure, we would have to qualify for that move. I am not sure what IFS Applications currently uses for hosting.

I rate the initial setup of IFS Applications a four out of ten.

We did the implementation of IFS Applications ourselves. However, we had a third party provide some guidance, but we were the ones driving the project.

IFS Applications are competitive in terms of pricing compared to other vendors, such as SAP, Oracle, and Epicor. They are generally cheaper, especially for licensing costs.

I rate the price of IFS Applications a six out of ten.

I'm part of the IFS life sciences roundtable, there has been no emphasis on a life science-specific model. As an example, SAP, they have a pharma-approved template that you can use for the business. We had to develop our own documentation, our own testing, and our own strategy for getting it approved by FDA and MHRA. Something that I think they are missing the trick because if they were to have a life science-centric solution, they could be opening up too much better markets, especially around the big players, such as big pharma.

I am a member of the IFS life sciences roundtable, and we have not seen a focus on a life science-specific model. For instance, SAP has a pharma-approved template that can be used for business purposes. However, we had to create our own documentation, testing, and approval strategy for the FDA and MHRA. I believe this is a missed opportunity for IFS, as a life science-focused solution could potentially access larger markets, particularly within the pharmaceutical industry.

Everyone that I speak to uses SAP because for this reason. It's difficult to maintain. We have to maintain it now, but the documentation and the whole application life cycle around a life science or GXP would be huge.

I rate IFS Applications a six out of ten.

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 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 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.

I do data migration on IFS, mostly on V10, V8, and V9, and I'm starting to get on the cloud. I also work as a functional consultant on the project and electronic document management modules. These are my two feeds as a functional consultant.

IFS is adaptable to our client's needs. You can put in all the workflows and make connections between systems. IFS has the flexibility to be deployed on the cloud or on-premise, and you can connect to IoT.

It also has a mobile application, which is convenient when people are out in the field doing inventories of materials, for example. All this information and these devices are grouped into one system, and everything is logged into a single database. 

I like the connectivity and interfaces. In V10, it's easy to modify the interfaces and layouts, but it's becoming more complicated in the cloud. IFS is excellent at asset maintenance and incident management. They have specialized modules for IFS that cover incident and asset management and everything else connected to finance. The reporting in IFS is also easy to use. 

IFS uses Crystal Report mostly, which isn't too user-friendly. Developing reports isn't easy and requires a lot of dev time. Since SAP bought it, Crystal Report has become more complicated to use on IFS. You have a dashboard for reporting that is good, but it's incomplete. Most of our clients use Power BI or some additional tooling for BI.

I worked on a third-party system called Harmony Solution. This French company produces a reporting tool that I feel is better than Crystal Report for IFS. They could also improve the plugin for Excel data migration to clarify its use. Many clients use it for massive amounts of data, which affects their systems. There is no communication about that. Clients use the Excel plugin because they know it works, but it does not always work the way it should. They need to improve the plugin's performance or inform customers to limit their use.

Migration jobs are often based on Excel inputs, particularly CSV files. That can cause issues when operating across several countries. For example, say I'm working on a French PC collaborating with someone in India who uses an Indian PC. Excel will transform the file based on the country's language, and the input data will be wrong. I believe they are trying to fix this with the smart data tool in the cloud. 

I have used IFS for two and a half years. 

I believe IFS is pretty stable. Everything is adaptable. It's a strong ERP system.

I rate IFS Apps eight out of 10 for scalability. It is super-scalable for now. In the cloud, they are internalizing scalability, trying to do it themselves instead of letting third parties do it.

I rate IFS support five out of 10. The only issue is the time difference. They provide a solution most of the time, but their service is a bit slow. When you open a ticket to IFS, you can sometimes wait months for a resolution. It's isn't easy for us to wait that long. 

Neutral

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

IFS is suitable for medium-sized companies or large enterprises. It is probably too expensive for small companies.

I rate IFS Applications seven out of 10. You need to hire the right employees if you want to use IFS because there aren't many IFS consultants out there. It's hard to find someone who knows IFS and they tend to be irreplaceable. Another thing is that the IFS documentation is often incomplete. They sell their product before it's 100% finished.