IFS Cloud Platform Reviews

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 check IFS Applications for information, mainly its archives and employee database. I'm still working on a project for a polygraph company, which still has some technical information in IFS Applications. As a regular ERP system used daily for the business, I last used IFS Applications in 2019 because my company now uses SAP, but I still use IFS Applications from time to time.

In 2019, I was a planning manager, and I used IFS Applications to create a production plan and check the production from a planning point of view, and that was my most significant use case for the solution.

What I like about IFS Applications is that it's easier to use and implement than SAP.

I also like that the IFS Applications team is more flexible than the SAP team.

I also prefer the solution over SAP because it is faster, and I can tweak its settings based on my needs. I can prepare IFS Applications my way, and not according to some standards.

The support provided by IFS Applications has room for improvement. I'm based in Poland, and when my company had an issue, finding people from IFS to give my company the support it needed was difficult. I work for a big corporation. After a few years, the company decided to form an IT team that could manage issues related to IFS Applications because there was no direct support from IFS.

You can buy products everywhere, but the most crucial aspect is the service or support you receive after purchasing a product or solution.

What I want to be added to IFS Applications that would make life easier is a reporting feature that's easy and useful, rather than my company having to use a BI system or IBM Cognos for reporting. It'll be too expensive for small companies to implement a BI system in addition to an ERP system. IFS Applications currently has an Excel function that allows you to put your data into Excel and work on Excel. Still, it would be great to have easy diagrams and a direct reporting feature added to the solution.

Sometimes, I still use IFS Applications. I still have access to the solution.

I find IFS Applications very stable.

Scalability in IFS Applications is very good, so it's a nine out of ten.

My rating for the IFS Applications technical support team is a five out of ten.

Neutral

The company decided to go with IFS Applications because of its pricing and the possibility to customize the system. It was the best system at the time.

The initial setup for IFS Applications was easy, especially when you compare it to SAP.

On average, deploying IFS Applications takes three months from start to finish, but that's because my company has many departments.

Compared to SAP, the pricing for IFS Applications was very affordable. People using the solution would find that it's worth the money.

In the past, about three hundred people used IFS Applications in my company, but nowadays, not more than twenty.

I'd tell new users of IFS Applications or anyone looking into implementing it that it's a very intuitive system. It's easy to use. Even if you haven't used it before, you'll find it easy to use because IFS Applications works in Windows, and it has a lot of similarities with how tools from Microsoft work.

My rating for IFS Applications is nine out of ten. I have experience with three ERP systems, and I find IFS Applications the best because the solution was the easiest to learn and teach to new users.

My company is an IFS Applications user.

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 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 would refer to the multipurpose system as one that can be scaled to fit different companies and their various business needs. I have worked closely with companies that use the solution for both manufacturing and service. Service in particular is an area where the solution excels. For example, a company that builds machinery could use it for after-market sales and maintenance.

The early 2000s were quite different from where IFS is now, making it hard to answer what a cool feature would have been then. However, IFS has been completely rebuilt, modernized, and cloud-based so we don't need bulky software installations. IFS also has a modern user interface that makes it easier to use than traditional ERP systems. The solution has been redesigned in the last few years, making it a more modern system.

As a consultant, examining the system, it appears that the challenge may be in marketing the system as a set of distinct modules. When a company chooses IFS as its ERP solution, it can be confused about which features to use and how to use them. Additionally, end-user documentation may be difficult to understand, particularly for those without prior experience with the solution, which can create a steep learning curve. As a consumer software solution, we expect that when we start using a new system, it would guide us through the necessary processes. Unfortunately, IFS does not have this guiding capability, making it difficult for users to understand the design process and which buttons to press in order to move forward. To gain a full understanding of the system, users often have to do extensive research and read through a large amount of documentation. The solution needs to improve its documentation and user-friendliness.

I have been using the solution for 11 years.

I give the stability an eight out of ten. Considering IFS Cloud is the new version of the system, we have encountered instability issues with it. We have had cases of unplanned outages, but we must bear in mind that all manmade systems experience outages. In that regard, IFS is no exception and I would not say that the stability issues are particularly bad. It can be difficult to manage multiple responsibilities, such as the customer hosting the system and then the system going down. The stability of the system in most cases cannot be attributed to IFS because it is likely due to a different root cause.

I give the scalability of the solution a nine out of ten. From a technical perspective, scalability can be achieved by allocating more resources or by moving the system to a cloud environment, allowing the backend to be scaled quite easily. The IFS system is highly scalable, both in terms of integrations and computing power, due to its open APIs. The solution is also highly flexible in terms of licensing, with the ability to purchase subscription licenses for additional users. Finally, the system is designed to handle multi-company mergers, with the ability to easily create subsidiary entities within the same system.

The technical support offered by IFS could be improved. Navigating their large organizational structure to find the right contact can be quite a challenge. The customers should be provided with comprehensive documentation so that they can manage the system themselves, without needing to contact technical support for every problem they encounter. Additionally, the resolution time should be as short as possible; reducing the time it takes for technical support to connect to the customer environment and begin investigating.

Neutral

I give the initial setup an eight out of ten. There is still a lack of comprehensive, step-by-step documentation and a steep learning curve, making the process difficult even for experienced technicians.

The integration of IFS Applications, the most up-to-date version, is incredibly straightforward. All system endpoints are open to customers with the appropriate license, making it a breeze to get started with integrating the system. This is a far cry from what it was like 20 years ago! In the past, customizing or integrating a system often required extensive tailoring and extensive coding from integration companies. However, this is no longer the case. Setting up the backend and server infrastructure for a system is now quite simple. We can choose to install the system in our own data center, in the cloud, or in an IFS data center. This is known as a managed or fast system, where IFS runs the backend and the customer can simply use the system.

Typically, in our company, we install the most up-to-date version of the system. Assuming we already have the necessary infrastructure in place, such as servers, deploying the system and performing quality assurance can be done in a matter of days.

The pricing of the solution may appear to be expensive for smaller companies with only tens of users; however, for larger and mid-size industrial companies, IFS is able to win deals and the pricing is competitive in the market. 
I've seen a lot of different licensing models, and IFS pricing might be one where we are required to buy a license for each feature module. This could be a problem for small businesses that require all the standard features such as finance, HR, and procurement; having to buy a license for each of these would make the total cost of ownership expensive.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

I believe that IFS is an outstanding system that can provide solutions for any industry. It is especially great for core processes, such as financial, HR, and supply chain. IFS is more flexible than ServiceNow and is perfect for companies with a turnover of more than a hundred million. The solution has features that can be tailored to almost any process.

I mainly use IFS Applications for auto management and manufacturing modules.

IFS Applications has improved our conduct of business.

IFS Applications' best feature is the user-friendly interface that has a .NET Framework application in the front end and an Oracle database and WebLogic middleware.

IFS Applications is not robust enough to handle high-volume transactions, so it's not suitable for larger enterprises. It's also lacking flexibility in platform compatibility - it's more compatible with Windows than other platforms. In the next release, IFS Applications should include compatibility with mobile devices.

I've been using IFS Applications for around two years.

IFS Applications is stable.

IFS Applications is scalable because it has a .Net application and WebLogic, which give it more flexibility in terms of scalability.

IFS Applications' technical support is good, but it needs to evolve in comparison to competitors like Microsoft, Oracle, and SAP.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward, and even less-experienced people should be able to handle it. Deployment will take around six months for small organizations and a year for larger ones.

We collaborated with a vendor team.

There's an additional yearly cost for support.

IFS Applications is very user-friendly and easy to deploy, and it's suitable for small and medium enterprises. However, I would advise that user training and support are essential to ensure users get the hang of the product. I would give IFS Applications a rating of six out of ten.

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'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.