How SPIE Nederland keeps IFS operations under control with Eqeep and Arvato Systems
SPIE Nederland selected the IFS Product Suite to support critical processes across its multi-technical services business. It then needed a managed service arrangement covering the application and its infrastructure. The published account describes how Eqeep Benelux and Arvato Systems divided that work.
Why did SPIE need a managed service model?
SPIE had evaluated enterprise software vendors before choosing IFS. Its goals included improving process efficiency, supporting growth and strengthening its operational foundation. The platform choice was followed by a separate decision about how the IFS environment would be managed.
SPIE wanted coverage for infrastructure, technical application management and functional management. It also sought flexibility, scalability and IFS knowledge from partners who understood its business context.
What responsibilities did the partners take on?
SPIE needed more than a route for reporting incidents. Service desk, application management and infrastructure responsibilities had to fit together. The aim was a support arrangement that connected technical work with the processes used by the business.
SPIE selected Eqeep Benelux and Arvato Systems. In the arrangement described, Eqeep became the central IFS contact for the service desk and Application Management Service. Arvato Systems provided Microsoft Azure infrastructure and technical application management.
How were application and infrastructure roles divided?
Eqeep’s role centred on the IFS application, business processes and users’ functional questions. Arvato Systems covered the Azure infrastructure and technical application management. Together, these responsibilities formed the managed service model around the IFS Product Suite.
That division mattered because application and infrastructure issues could affect the same operational teams. Planners, service teams and finance depended on the IFS environment in their daily work. The arrangement was intended to give them a clear route for support and improvement.
Which decisions stayed with SPIE?
SPIE retained control over its operational direction. The partners took on defined responsibilities around the IFS environment, while the business remained responsible for its choices.
For Eqeep, the application-management role required an understanding of the processes behind users’ questions. The focus was practical support for the business after the platform decision.
What does this example show about IFS support?
The story brings three responsibilities into view: application support, the underlying technical environment and the customer’s operational decisions. Each needed a clear owner. For businesses reviewing IFS support, that distinction provides a useful starting point.
SPIE’s published example shows how those roles were divided between the business and its service partners. The account describes that arrangement at the time; it does not establish today’s contractual scope.
