Hi. We just run into this issue as well when trying to move to Lobbies from older customized start page. Would need the Lobby links to open to external services (web browser and ECM system) directly. Will test the bat file because the shift or ctrl usage does not force them opening to external service and nobody would remember to use them anyway. This comment is here just to flag this converation so I can find it later and to highlight the relevancy. We are still years away from Cloud+Aurena so we need these tips and tricks, thanks.
From IFS I have understood that the technical update phases go pretty smoothly. That is important but only the climax of the whole Release Update-process (which’s image link above is now broken). All preceding actions are done according to the somewhat customer-specific agreement on contents and roles. This is what I’m interested to hear more about and my main focus on the upcoming regional customer day events in April.
Are you as a Cloud user now in at least 21R1? If not where do you think the stuggle is?
Also, in case of having an external HR master system (not in IFS), any special challenges in securing IFS internal functionalities in this case? The fear is ending up with even more fragmented user right/permission management than with system internal HR master. Have you reached simplicity/automation/piece-of-mind in this scenario?
If IFS R&D provides 24 monthly Service Updates per Relese and 21R1 was released in March-21 and 21R2 in October-21, it means that now there should be no one using 21R1 anymore. Has this succeeded?
It’s been quiet here, maybe everyone is busy planning the updates.Cloud first appeared in 20xx(?).2021 had two releases, R2 had at least 17 service updates ad R1 at least 16.2022 had two releases and R2 at least 6 service updates2023 has two releases.Cloud having the 23 month? rolling support means that every supported Cloud customer should now be using at least 2021R2. If you are in this situation, what has it required from you? What if you are still using some older Cloud release, what has prevented the updates earlier and what do you do now?
Well glad you got them eventually. The Standard Definition Documents or SDD’s and all customization specifications are docs that are needed regularly.
Harsh feedback here. I’m expecting that in the future when we hop onboard the Cloud release train, it will keep pushing on like, well, a train. https://docs.ifs.com/techdocs/23r1/020_lifecycle/images/RUprocess.pngIt would require all the related roles, processes and info to be in top condition early on.Are you all working with a partner, IFS or by yourselves with all the steps in the pic above?
Currently Q3/2024 is seen as earliest possible moment of service on this matter. In addition to us, IFS is aware of 1 other customer wanting this email integration back. This seems to conflict with this thread where I count 5 other customers. Please let yourself be heard of your needs as it might help in prioritization, thanks.
What if you do not do a next release update during the 23 month support window for the one in use now?
Sure, for contents. User info part was the surprise for me. I thought a reminder was in order as there is the personal info thread too.
Currently I see that going through the new release notes and deciding what effects us and whether they could replace some older crims and deciding how they should be configured to be used is an area where improvement is much welcomed. Cloud release update process has this built in. In apps versions this is easily only done in updates at a few years or more interval with a huge cost for a huge project. In Cloud version this work is more continuous but it also requires more continuous input from the customer. And to better understand this input change and how to preapare for it is in the core of this thread
The infographic from the above “Release Update Studio” link sure is a good start for conversations about who should do what and how much work and time is needed for each stephttps://docs.ifs.com/techdocs/23r1/020_lifecycle/images/RUprocess.pngHow are you all using partners/IFS services with these steps?
thanks @Marcel.Ausan The crim’s can indeed have a big role in the game. Our count is around 200. They are still in the custom layer so it would also be interesting to understand deeper what kind of effects the higher crim count can have to the upgrade process in regards of work. From what I have understood about the number of changes compared to previous releases, the amount is on the other hand rising ever faster, but still usually most if not all changes are in whole different modules than what we are using. This should help the upgrade is “nothing changes”. What kind of impact analysis tools there are?
Good background stuff f.ex. here at “Community > Knowledge base > IFS Product Release Notes > IFS Cloud Overview and Demos” by Bob Corrigan. The videos here seem to point to an external location ad need a separate external logon. There was another place here on Community by some other person where the videos were shown inside the Community (preferred, or maybe they were in YouTube because they were full of ads which was super annoying) but it is a struggle to find the links again.
Also, lessons about the build-place/use-place practices are interesting. They are of course an integral part of keeping up with the release+update flow.
Just re-read this thread. We have recently started the upgrade from 9 to 10 project that I mentioned above and the golive date in prod is almost a year from now. We have a bunch of customizations (n ~200). Our biggest reasons not to jump to IFS Cloud directly: A) upgrading the customizations without having to re-plan every process at once (which would have required waay too much effort. It would be a partial re-implementation with changes needed to many e2e processes and also to other connecting systems). B) continue using IEE to avoid a big bang project C) agreement related reasons We have tried to “cut the elephant to smaller pieces” by doing a technical code upgrade first and acknowledge that there are many continuation projects to do when first in IFS10. These include the integration technique change to using rest api’s, the switch to Aurena UI and some internal component switchovers from older to newer component (like budgeting functionalities). At the same time it already worrie
We have now passed the first anniversary of the problem (since 1.10.2022). During this time the old LCS and CEC portals have been removed and we are currently using the new Service Portal (since 13.2.2023). Some email traffic is now working, like replies from the IFS portal to our own ITSM portal (and also directly to individuals own emails). What we are still lacking is the reply-capability from our ITSM portal or from individuals to the case at IFS Service Portal. There is currently no estimate when this could work as other things are prioritized first and the work required was more than expected.
The matter here is the removal of reply by mail functionalities of IFS LCS and CEC ticketing portals. The comments above have been moved from the LCS update info thread. The change was done last saturday 1.10.2022.
I heard there is a plan for some customers (starting from the ones using the most recent versions of applications) to move using the new ServiceNow portal. Is there any info on this Community related to it?The change done 1.10.2022 where the older LCS and CEC portals lost the reply by mail functionality is why I’m asking. It really hurts our processes at the moment and we need the capabiity back.
Just re-read this thread. We have recently started the upgrade from 9 to 10 project that I mentioned above and the golive date in prod is almost a year from now. We have a bunch of customizations (n ~200).Our biggest reasons not to jump to IFS Cloud directly:A) upgrading the customizations without having to re-plan every process at once (which would have required waay too much effort. It would be a partial re-implementation with changes needed to many e2e processes and also to other connecting systems).B) continue using IEE to avoid a big bang projectC) agreement related reasonsWe have tried to “cut the elephant to smaller pieces” by doing a technical code upgrade first and acknowledge that there are many continuation projects to do when first in IFS10. These include the integration technique change to using rest api’s, the switch to Aurena UI and some internal component switchovers from older to newer component (like budgeting functionalities).At the same time it already worries a lot
So it seems that emails no longer flow on either direction between our (customer+vendor) ticketing systems. This is a severe functional downgrade on the service that reduces mutual transparency on taken ticket actions and comments and living without this causes double work for our main users administering the tickets. Ours (the customer) change management cannot happen using only vendors portal and some kind of integration is a must to avoid double work. So far the light email integration with ticket ID’s on the subject, IFS’ id-line on the message body and ticket portal addresses as recipients has been sufficient.We either need this reply by mail capability back (preferred) or some solution to replace it, urgently. Escalation asked from our side.
Any info on this matter yet?
We are currently planning on starting a Apps9upd17->Apps10upd15 project. The 10-upgrade was first thought around 2019 but it did not provide anything special then so we have done two Apps9 sub-version updates since then instead (you could argue were they worth it). Main driver for the 10-upgarade is keeping up in supported versions and trying to minimize the tech debt. During the Apps10 usage the aim is to do step-by-step integration renewals and transitions to the new UI. The remaining supported life of 6 years until 2028 for Apps10 is not that long when you wonder the business case for the total implementation projects and related work and trouble. Reading the above thread about all the challenges the Cloud brings along it really makes one think is this work with a meaning :D.
We are using it rather lot on transmitting extra info regarding construction projects whose lifespan can be 5 or more years even. The sticky notes are not very liked because they are always on the way and have to be moved around. We have a custom feature in use for entering manual log entries for projects and that could be the place to migrate the sticky notes contents before the switch to Aurena. It could and probably should be done already in IEE to get rid of the stickies. But the sticky notes can be used everywhere and what I described above is only one certain view where it has been used. So the notes used elsewhere still have to be backed up and transferred somewhere else.
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.
