Share your experience using OnPage Incident Alert Management

Initially, I started using it for managing on-call schedules. As the tech stack developed, we began using it for service alerts and event routing, and then transitioned to operational views and dashboarding. It eventually became central to our alerting systems, where all monitoring tools would send information to PagerDuty, enabling event management and routing to whoever was on call.

The product used to be unique in getting the message to the right person to fix the job. It integrates with multiple applications and is highly customizable, with policies, escalation procedures, and an event routing tool that ensures contacting the right person. A significant advantage is that it includes a metrics overlay, which provides an overview of what is happening in the environment, and its scheduling capabilities are superior to other operations.

Everything can always be better. Operations are somewhat limited by their integration package. For example, integrating with Jira was problematic until they updated to a better plug-in. The ability to build customized modules would be advantageous, allowing organizations to define their own integration modules. It would be useful to have a way to define all configurations in code that is similar to how Terraform operates.

The solution has been 100% stable with no issues due to PagerDuty.

The product was highly scalable, with no limits on the number of applications or event routing rules. However, managing a large number of these became cumbersome, suggesting a need for a way to define everything in code.

The customer service was amazingly good. They helped us build our event routing.

Positive

The setup is very straightforward, allowing users to be up and running within minutes. Usually, one knowledgeable person is enough to manage it.

The solution was expensive, but if all its features were utilized, it was considered worth the cost. The tier-based pricing model was cumbersome, and there was a desire for a service-based catalog to better customize purchases.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

I mainly use Salesforce Service Cloud for field service. Field Service Lightning is a major feature I have used in the product. It definitely assists on-site support operations.

Regarding the positive aspects of the product, the first advantage is that it is integrated with the CRM customer, making it highly customer-focused. I can easily connect with the customer, have agent AI to directly communicate with them, and customers can create a case without any intervention. Technicians can reach out to customers, making communication seamless.

The knowledge base in the product definitely helps resolve customer issues. I use the knowledge base mainly for the technicians; they get the details, pre-work brief, and information on probable cases based on what the customer reports, including what parts they need to carry.

Omni-channel support definitely improves customer engagement, but it has been available for a long time, so it is nothing new currently.

While Salesforce Service Cloud is more customer-focused, I believe a little more focus on assets is necessary. Customers who are asset-heavy prefer to stay with ServiceMax and other field service applications, so increasing asset centricity would be helpful.

I have been using it since 2018.

As for stability, I would rate it an eight, as it is a stable product.

I would rate scalability highly because it is scalable, and there are always parts or other improvements. I can rate it a seven.

Rating technical support from Salesforce is a difficult question for me because I do not generally deal with it.

I have dealt with solutions similar to Salesforce Service Cloud, working with a few of them, including IFS and ServiceMax; these are the primary ones.

I have noticed crucial differences between these tools. For instance, while I have the auto-scheduling option in Salesforce Service Cloud, IFS has a much better product in PSO that constantly updates reroutes based on priority and other criteria. ServiceMax is better for asset-related activities, being more asset-centric.

The installation and deployment process is comparatively easy.

I see a good ROI.

The ROI depends on the context; if I am comparing one application to another, it might be around ten percent, but if it is from manual to a streamlined process, the ROI is much higher—sometimes reaching forty percent for parts return and the first-time fix rate.

The ROI is contingent on which modules I am using, how extensively I am using the application, and how well it is integrated. It depends on multiple factors.

Regarding pricing, I would say Salesforce field service is affordable, but the cost is increasing a little bit.

I am not using Einstein Bots. I am the Presales and Solution Head for the field service application in the company. I would give this product an overall review rating of seven.