IFS Solutions

Working with a customer who is using MSP to replace the gantt chart in IFS. They are currently happy with what it provides for them, but would like to be able to update the Responsible Person per activity directly from MSP itself. When you change the responsible person in IFS it is replicated in the import to MSP but uncertain if we can do the reverse. Has anyone encountered this? 

IFS Cloud. Rental object was assigned to the wrong project for a past period. Cost is sitting on the wrong project. Source reversal is blocked because the equipment is already out on a new rental on a different project (can't "return" it).Two options on the table:1. Project transaction pair with a dedicated Reclass-type Report Code: credit wrong project, debit destination. Produces a T voucher pair, keeps project ledger and GL aligned.2. Pure analytical GL posting: manual voucher correcting the code-string dimensions only. Doesn't touch the project ledger.Which do you use in production, and why? Anything I should watch out for if I go the Report Code route?

Hi, I have Project Misc Demand on an Activity, which I used to create and receive material in against a PO. Now I have material within the Project Inventory. I created a Work Order & Work Task connected to this activity. I then created a Material Req on the Work Task (Supply Code Project Inv) and reserved and issued the part on the Work Task. I was expecting the Project Misc Demand to also show a quantity issued of 1 but it’s still showing  in Project Misc Demand Issued Quantity of 0. Is this expected behaviour? Do I need to manually (or automate) the issuing of project misc demand, even if it’s been issued on a connected work task?  Thank you

Go to register arrivals and filter by "Source Ref Type" equal to "Return Material Authorization" and click search.Choose any one of them and click "Receive Parts against Order Deliveries". A pop up window appears and you can choose which material and quantity you want to return.It doesn't matter if you choose the quantity on the RMA or less than the quantity on the RMA, it give you the error shared below.  

With use IFS 25R2. We are struggling to understand how and when the LotBatchMaster table gets populated, and we are facing situations where we expect records to exist but find nothing. Situation 1 — Customer Order delivery : We manually reserved specific lot numbers against a customer order line, and the delivery was completed successfully. We can see the inventory transactions in the transaction history. However, when we open the Part Lot Batch page and filter by article or by lotNo., no record appears for these lots. We would expect to see entries with Order Type = Customer Order.Situation 2 — Return Material Authorization : We processed a customer return (RMA). During the receipt of the returned goods, we specified the lot numbers of the items being returned (in order to have the same lot No of the Costumer Order line). The receipt was completed successfully. Again, when we open Part Lot Batch, no record appears for these returned lots. We would expect entries with Order Type = Retu

Hi all,I’m interested in how others are handling communication and notes on expense claims within IFS.We’re currently on Apps10 (Aurena) and migrating to IFS Cloud, and we’re reviewing how best to manage information sharing during the expense approval process.We often have situations where additional context would really help, for example: Receipt requested or missing Coding needs clarification Special conditions or agreed exceptions Explaining delays in approval or processing At the moment, I’m not aware of a way of capturing this information within IFS that is visible and consistent for: The next approver in the workflow Finance teams reviewing the claim The employee who submitted it What I’d like to understand How are others managing this in practice? What approach do you use to capture and share this kind of information within expense claims? Is this handled using standard functionality or something more tailored? How do you ensure the information is visible and act

Hi, My customer is experiencing this problem where in the my work l → Assignment details, they are seeing Pickup task information instead of Request task information.This is how the UI used to be  Now they are seeing pickup task information.Any idea how this can be resolved?checked in MAUI app and classic app both.

Hello IFS Community,I exported a layout from the IFS CFG environment on the Report Definition page. It’s a working layout that I previously modified and now need to update. However, when I try to open it in IFS Report Designer (connected to the CFG environment), the PDF does not open.I haven’t made any changes yet. Even when I try to open layouts that I had successfully modified before, the PDF still does not open.Has anyone experienced this behavior or know what might be causing it?As shown in the screenshot below, I am connected to the CFG environment. 

Hi Community,A customer has changed their Financial year from July (July to June) to January (January to December). Due to this reason, in accounting year 2023, they have had a 18 month financial year. In IFS, for accounting year 2023, the periods start from July 2023 and goes till December 2024. Accounting year 2024 starts from January 2025 and goes till December 2025. Therefore, the accounting year and accounting periods have a misalignment.Customer wants to get the accounting year and the accounting periods aligned starting 2027.Therefore, accounting year 2026 has been created as follows.  Having only 1/1/2027 as the year opening and closing dates. Then accounting year 2027 as follows. Validity periods starting from 2/1/2027. I managed to conduct the Preliminary Year End. Currently working on performing the Final Year End.Can there be any issues related to this correction in 2027? Your inputs will be highly appreciated. Thank you. Kind Regards,Nishani

Hi All,I am encountering an error in Cash Plan when running the "Order Snapshot" option.The system is prompting me to define payment terms for multiple suppliers under a specific company. However, these suppliers have no active transactions and no business relationship with this company.Could you please clarify if we are required to link all companies to all suppliers to resolve this error, or if this is a system bug?Thanks

This seems like a basic request but I cannot find any way to achieve this inside IFS (Apps10).If we have a part shortage, how can we generate a list of all top level parts (manufactured units) that this part could go into?With a lot of manual work/expanding of assemblies we can get there using the Complete Where Used and Component Where Used screens, but we have to expand all of the multiple level sub-assemblies in order to find all of the top level parts that are impacted.Surely there has to be a better, quicker way to identify just a simple list of top level units (final assembly) that would require a specific part?

Hi Everyone,We have a customer using the Test Data Management tool, and they currently have a quota of two environments.We have already approved and created a QA environment, and we now need to create two DEV environments. Before proceeding, we would like to confirm whether creating the new DEV environments could have any impact on the data in the existing QA environment.Thank you for your assistance.

In Presales Support Services, we created a Proof of Concept for a new report: Service Report for Request Work Task, similar to the report generated from MWO (Mobile Work Order).Attachments:Ready-to-install solution Example report output  Thanks to ​@gisagb for the idea and key contribution.

Hi,Hope someone has a good idea for my following case:Two advance invoice were sent to customer and paid(1000aud) in full. After that, the customer order quantity was decreased.The shipment was sent and the last invoice was created(900aud), cupia generated automatically -100aud via offset. In this case, customer has overpaid. Could anyone please guide me how to handle this open cupia?Thanks,

Hello,I tried using a by-product in the product structure together with Cost Distribution (for example, 20% of the operation cost distributed to the by-product and the remaining 80% to the main product).I then received the parts from a Production Schedule line. The system correctly received both the main product and the by-product, but the Cost Distribution setting from the product structure did not seem to be applied. The costs were still calculated according to the standard cost defined in the Estimated Material Cost for each part.Do you know whether this functionality is supposed to work when receiving parts from a Production Schedule line, or is it only supported for Shop Orders?Thanks for your help.Kind regards,David Dočkal

A new version of Perfidia v4.50.228a has been released. The actual version can be downloaded here:https://www.perfidia.de/downloads/psa/psasetup.exePerfidia Forum can also be accessed with GuestAccess (Gastzugang)https://www.perfidia.de/Perfidia?action=forum

I posted the question of this topic and the AI response was provided below. Can someone please verify this is correct and provide further details and a contact person at FSM Cloud Hosting.Will be greatly appreciated! Summary — recommended packaging and handover checklist for FSM 6 deliveries to FSM Cloud team 1) Package source and artifactsExport all deliverables from your local FSM 6 environment: Solution packages/customizations (code, DLLs, compiled artifacts). Workflow/BPMN files and any process definitions. UI/Studio artifacts, JourneyApps or mobile app packages if used. Database migration scripts (schema changes, seed data). Configuration files (connection strings, feature toggles) with placeholders for secrets. Integration artifacts (API specs, mapping files, middleware connectors). Test artifacts (unit/integration test suites, test data, automation scripts). 2) Version control and manifestCommit everything to a Git repository (one branch per delivery or a release tag) so h

Dear All, I was working with Work Orders, Permits and Isolation orders. The whole idea was to create Work Task Templates and Pm actions involving Permits and Isolation orders so that 1 Work Order would suffice. I want to create 1 Work Order where 2 Work Tasks need to be done (with a dependency Start after Finish).The 1st Work Task involves welding so the machine has to be 100% electrically isolated - and will be performed by a Welder. The 2nd Work Task is a calibaration mode, so the machine must have power, but still be isolated from the normal production. Conveyor belts (that are powered separately) are not allowed to be running. So different kind of permitThe thing is, apparently to be able to start the 1st Work Task, both permits need to be released. Despite the fact that the Work Task are 2 completely separate things that are performed after each other, by different people, maybe even with a day in between due to scheduling conflicts.  So this does not seem to making sense to me. I

In Report Studio there are five Dynamic Images functions.  Image, Logo, and Signature all work without issue.  I have not been able to get DBImage and Media to work.  Has anybody successfully used these two functions in Report Studio? (I know there are workarounds, I’m specifically asking about the functionality in Report Studio) To test, I put a single image in the Media Item.Following the syntax in the Tech Docs, I have tried the following:Media(‘RKS’), Media(‘1000’), Media(1000) → none display the picture in the report output.DBImage('MEDIA_ITEM','MEDIA_OBJECT','ITEM_ID=1000') , same in lowercase, same with appowner in front of the view name. → none display the picture in the report output.

Hello all, Has IFS added the ability to utilize the customer consignment sales process with configured to order manufactured parts? 10 and prior, it was not possible. Thanks,Rich 

Our customer has a  situation where engineers are unable to complete work tasks for various reasons, hence puts the task to incomplete with incomplete reason. Based on incomplete reason we would need a revisit on the same task and hence a new assignment is needed.If we do it from Mobile we have two options,Assign to me (which asks for preferred date and time) Needs to be plannedIdeally the requirement is let PSO decide when can it be replanned for based on the SLA. However problem here is, if we give the option of Needs to be planned, it creates a the new allocation but goes to unallocated as it becomes a co-requisite of the previous assignment (one which was incompleted) and thus cannot be scheduled by PSO anymore and also it will never go to the same technician even if technician has the available. And if we give assign to me, we need to give the preferred date and time and it goes to accepted status directly which is completely wrong.I’m looking for suggestions or best practices on

Hi everyone,We’ve recently installed IFS Cloud 25R2 and have started testing the e‑invoicing features. During our checks, we noticed that the UBL 2.1 file generated by IFS for the outgoing invoice flow does not fully comply with the requirements of the French tax authorities.Some mandatory XML tags appear to be missing, such as the SIREN and the invoice routing address.I’d be interested to know whether other users have encountered the same issue, and if so, what solutions or workarounds you are considering.Thanks in advance for your feedback!

Hello IFS Community ,We are in the process of testing customer payment proposal for direct debiting  ,and as payment method ,  can I know if we can use  any other payment method other than SEPADD (It works fine)as the client doesn't have any Euro customers at the moment .They currently have BACS and ISO20022 payment methods .ThanksUdanee  

Hi,The company I work for builds racing cars and we would like to exchange with users that have been able to manage successfully product structures with different options / configurations per customer and by product (cars in our example).We would like to be able to deal differently with the purchasing depending on the parts and the assembly order.We would like a picking stategy/order that depends on the structure.We would like to follow the missing parts to focus on the priority parts depending on assembly.We would like to have a multi-level structure per parts, assembly, full assembly and full car.Can anyone share their experience if you have been able to implement it in IFS ?Thanks and Regards,Anne-Sophie

Hello,We are a new user for IFS and currently in the build stage.I am looking at the verification of UK VAT numbers.Is it right that I need to personally register for HMRC developer hub account to get a Client ID and Secret?I’ve been able to query HMRC’s test API and successfully verify their test VAT number, but I am not 100% sure that I should be getting a developer ID and secret for this.I do note that the HMRC “Check a UK VAT number API” version 2.0 requires authentication.I just can’t believe that every company who has IFS needs to register a HMRC developer account to be able to use this functionality.Thank you,