Dear Paul

I do not comprehend how you can force a customer to pay for getting a bug fix when they are under restricted support. As you mention the chances are slim for a bug to be identified but when they are identified and the customer is affected in the current version they are using they should not have to pay for any bug fix. In fact you should reward them for identifying a bug when no one else did.

In addition bugs or issues created by previous deliverables under restricted support should be addressed at the cost of IFS Global Support.

We are not talking about new features but on bugs that have been identified and are affecting the business and when we pay Annual Maintenance.

Dear Gkabbara,

IFS always recommends to keep up to date with the latest release and updates of the application for the following reasons.

When a customer purchases the license to use an application as well as subscribe to the associated support and maintenance this is for that application and not a specific version.  Therefore the customer always has the right to choose and use the latest and current version and get access to the all the maintenance deliverables for that current version. 

When a new version of an application is released the then current version becomes the previous version.  At IFS we also commit to support and maintain such a previous version under standard support for at least 5 years after it was released to the market.  After that such a version goes into restricted support.  IFS may also choose to offer extended support on such a previous version.

Any fixes and new functions are delivered for the current version as part of the support an maintenance agreement.  Such fixes and functions are not by definition ‘down-ported’ to older versions as part of standard support and maintenance (unless the previous version is still in standard or extended support) but if feasible and possible, IFS could offer remediation as an additional service. 

Please note that this might not always be feasible as for example the underlying technology or infrastructure stack may no longer be supported by the vendor (e.g. support for older Oracle versions) or associated application on the front-end may have moved to different technologies (e.g. MS Office 365). In such cases IFS will of course try and find another solution or suggest a workaround if possible.  

These down-port or workaround activities for versions under restricted support are, as is standard in the industry, not included in the support and maintenance agreement and are offered on a T&M basis.

I hope this clarifies.

Paul

Of course the newer version is available to us, but it may not be feasible for all businesses to follow the new 5 year lifetime. Migrating/upgrading to a newer version costs in consultation from outside the business, the hours of those working within the business, supporting/testing the change, the additional training required and an update in infrastructure (if needed). No small investment.

We moved to version 9 later than we originally planned (2018). This did not cause us concern as we had been running with v7.5 for 9 years! without any talk of a restriction.

The goal posts have changed, and without much notice.

Hi Mike,

Firstly it’s great to hear that you’ve been getting value from your IFS investments for so many years.  Thank you for being such a loyal customer. 

At IFS we realise that the 5 years might not suit every customer and hence starting with Apps9 we make extended support available as an option for an additional 3 years.  We currently plan the same for Apps10.  More details can be found here.

However technology is evolving much faster than ever before and this acceleration will only continue.  Historically adopting new technology into a business was, as you describe, a dedicated project.  However, when we look at the consumer space this is simply a way of life and this continuous adoption is becoming part of the digital transformation of business as well.  Just think SaaS and the cadence of updates and adoption.  But why should it only be SaaS that benefit from this.

That is why IFS is moving towards being ‘Evergreen’ whether on-premise, in the cloud, on a perpetual license model or subscription, the choice remains yours.  Independent of the deployment option or commercial model, customers will be able to continuously benefit from new functionality, innovation and best practices. 

Yes, this will require a rethink of the application lifecycle management, supported by new tools and methodologies to minimise effort and risk as well as new services to assist customers on this journey but doing all this is the commitment from IFS.

Paul

Hi Paul

Back to a question where i can find no convincing answer ?

Why does the customer have to pay for a fix that was created by a deliverable that was applied to fix an issue? 

We have 3 cases which we can prove were created by a previous deliverable and were identified later on. These are still pending as we are on restricted support.

The LCS numbers have been shared with you.

regards

Hi Gkabbara,

Please bear in mind that every customer solution is unique as every customer has their own technical setup, own configurations, possibly own customisation, own data, own permission sets, own user behaviours, … etc.  Therefore the suggested remedy for an issue always is first tested within the standard software package but finally needs to be tested in the customer own solution.  

When an issue is raised in a case the resolution of that issue is tested and accepted by the customer before confirming and closing the case as ‘issue resolved’.  Any unintended consequences of a fix or workaround would have been detected and resolved as part of the active case resolution.  Any unsuspected behaviours or errors later on are usually due to a new combination of the customer specific conditions and the standard software and as such are considered new errors.  

I hope this clarifies.

Hi all,

This came as a shock our business when we received an email about this in February, having heard nothing before.
We are a relatively small company in regards to the rest of the IFS population and having to pay the initial 25% for first year extended support takes away from our businesses bottom line thus going forward forcing us to take up and migrate to Evergreen again at considerable cost to the company.

It all does seem a little unfair that after on four years on Apps 9 we face a 25%. then 50% and more hike for support before the inevitable jump to Evergreen and beyond.

We have found support in the past to be very hit and miss in the speed that cases are resolved over the years too.

Hi Daryl,

I can appreciate that this was not an easy message to receive. The standard IFS terms state that if a new release is made available then the previous release is maintained  for at least 5 years after originally being released to market.  Nevertheless I accept that historically our communication around this (and other similar topics) was not persistent enough therefore we are committed to do more to explain the impact and recommended next steps etc. 

Furthermore, I believe that the idea of upgrading from release to release is too disruptive and therefore we are moving towards the Evergreen philosophy.  Moving to the latest release (APPS10) is an important first step and should, if there are not too many modifications done, not be overly onerous. Being on the latest release not only avoids the surcharge but also makes the value of all the latest innovations available for consumption. 

I am disappointed to read that you have experienced support as ‘hit and miss’.  I am not saying we are perfect however our intention is to be the best we can be and improve all the time.  After all there is no benefit to our customers or IFS in delivering a disappointing experience.  Therefore, in future cases where we do not deliver according to our commitments, please reach out to your local support manager for us to look into this and continuously improve and adapt.

Regards,

Paul

Hi, 

do I understand right that if customer runs APPS9 on an end of support day and plan to use this version they will automatically be surcharged extra for 9th version maintenance until they will not upgrade to the newest version?

or if they will continue to use it without asking IFS for any support this will not cause customer additional maintenance fee ?   

Hi Stasvb,

The default position is for APPS9 to go into restricted support which will not incur any additional costs however will adjust the scope of deliverables as described above.  Extended support is offered at an additional cost and has to be explicitly ordered.

Thanks, 

Paul

@Gkabbara I totally agree with you. I find it unreal that just because I have found a software fault, (acknowledged by GSO), i cannot get a fix for it because we chose not to pay the 25% premium (in year 1) for extended support. even though i pay an hefty annual support fee…. so why do i pay standard annual support? just to allow me to move up to the latest version….  typical IFS thinking more about $$ than customers. Surely if the support on the version you are on that goes EOL is moved into restricted then you should pay less annual support, not more, since you are not getting as much support…. 

Also totally agree with @MikeArbon, IFS have this view that “just upgrade” like its simple… given the experiences of so many customers even a minor update has huge associated risk and cost, not to mention business disruption. 

In IFS’ defence the product version has to go EOL at some point and they must draw a line in the sand so to speak but sometimes its just not that easy…..

The license to use software and therefore the maintenance and support is for the application and not a specific version.  It is industry standard in software that as new versions becomes available customers move to the latest version to older versions are no longer supported.  Supporting such older versions have a higher cost associated and can be economically nonviable as the bulk of resources are focused on supporting the latest releases and therefore to support older versions a company has to double up on a diminishing skill pool for a decreasing number of older version installations.  

At IFS we understand that upgrading an ERP is not as simple as upgrading a point solution therefore we do not simply switch off support.  At first instance we move to restricted support.  There is no additional charge for this and this does not mean the version is de-supported or unsupported however our ability to remedy every kind of issue is restricted.  If and when previously unknown issues arise, we will still aim to address those if possible however, since there is additional costs and efforts associated we charge these through to the customer on a case by case basis. 

We understand this might still leave some customers feeling uneasy and exposed.  To help these customers with a more transparent and committed model we offer extended support for some versions at predetermined surcharges per annum. 

Therefore the customer always has the choice.  The recommendation is to move to the latest release and benefit from all the enhancements that were delivered as part of maintenance.  If this is not possible just yet then restricted support with remediation of issues on a case-by-case basis if and when possible is the default option.  Alternatively, if more commitment and predictability is required the option of extended support can be chosen.

Dear @Paul 

I am in charge of the help desk at NEC, our IFS partner in Japan.

In Japan, all customers using IFS9 are in the Restricted Support phase ,and customers still continue to pay for support.

Referring to the following URL, we understand that patches released after the end of Standard Support cannot be provided to the above customers, but is it possible to provide customers with patches released during the Standard Support period? (We will do the work of merging the patches into the customer's source).

<https://www.ifs.com/-/media/files/global-support-and-consulting-services/ifs-global-support-policy-sept-2021.pdf>

“Support Services Overview” in Global Support Policy above does not contain what we want to check.

Can you tell us more about the services you can provide to customers in the Restricted Support phase?

Best Regards,

Dear Neciwakura-san,

You are correct.  Unless a customer using APPS9 has opted for extended support their solution has been in restricted support since 27 March 2020.  This means that they are fully entitled to anything that was delivered before this date (up to and including Update 17).  Entitlement to anything after this date (including Update 18) is only for customers who opted for extended support.  

I hope this clarifies?

Regards
Paul

Dear @Paul ,

Thank you for the clear answer.

Checking with Global Support Policy and IFS Japan didn't clarify whether it was okay to provide customers with patches released during the Standard Support phase, so this was very helpful!

Best Regards,

Hiroki Iwakura

Dear @Paul ,

The following information can be found in "Continuous Support" of "Global Support Policy".

 Bi-Annual Release Updates, Service Updates per Release: 23 months from RTM

Am I correct in understanding that the expiration date of "Continuous Support" is 23 months after a certain "Release Update" is applied?
Or will the expiration date be extended if I apply "Service Update" after applying "Release Update"?

Also, when I check "IFS Cloud" on P4 of "Global Support Policy", ”Restricted Support” is "N/A.
If "Continuous Support" expires, will customers using "IFS Cloud" not receive any support?
Or will it be automatically shifted to "Restricted Support"?

Best Regards,
Hiroki Iwakura

Dear @Paul ,

I would like to reconfirm my previous question about the availability of Update 17 for customers who are using Apps 9 during the Restricted support Phase.

Based on your answer, I checked with Yoshito Shimazaki, who belongs to IFS Japan, and he gave me a different answer from yours as follows.
The following is a translation of his response, in which he says that it is fine for partners to distribute Update 17 to customers without permission, 
but that IFS Japan does not approve of it.

Can our customer get Update17 under Restricted support contract?
Can you please tell me which answer is correct, yours or IFS Japan's?

---------
We have been asked to distribute the Update17 on the assumption that it will be used with Restricted support. As you have confirmed, 
it is possible to distribute the Update17 with your permissions, but it will be difficult to distribute it during the upgrade process.
As you have confirmed, distribution is possible under your authority, but it is not possible for end users to use the product during the upgrade period. 
However, it is not possible to distribute the Update17 to end users during the upgrade period. 
However, if the end user has a problem that requires a patch during the upgrade period, the IFS response may be to upgrade to Apps 10 or later. 
In the event of a failure that requires a patch during this period, the IFS response will likely be to upgrade to Apps 10 or later. 
We have no choice but to answer that it is difficult to use as a version to be upgraded, and consequently, it is difficult to distribute.
---------

Best Regards,