SCSM Reviews

In my job, I work for the city where we have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft. We have Office, Word, PowerPoint, Outlook, server licensing, and Azure.

We have Active Directory with Windows Server, though we currently have some problems with the actualization of Active Directory. Our entire environment is based on Microsoft.

I work in Ecuador for the city, and it has been difficult for us to migrate to web-based software. All our software is currently in our data center at the office, making it difficult to migrate to the cloud.

We have one site here and we need to migrate to another site. We use SCSM here for Service Manager and have remote assistance in our office.

When we reach out to Microsoft, the service rates at eight or nine. However, when we work with local partners, the rating drops to five or six.

Since we have a complete Microsoft environment, it does not present significant problems for us.

More information about setup procedures and a more user-friendly front end would be beneficial. We need more information for setup processes. It is difficult to do the work independently, requiring us to hire external companies for maintenance hours to fix small issues that could be resolved faster in-house if we had better information.

We have been looking for an upgrade version, but finding local service has been difficult.

It has been challenging trying to get things done. Speaking with the Microsoft office, we found there are no local companies with substantial experience with SCSM. What we have now was installed five or six years ago. It has been difficult to change configurations and look for upgrades, even with all the manuals. Our office is considering moving away from SCSM and getting a service desk solution outside of Microsoft.

For me, it has been a good tool to get help and solve internal problems in the office. It is a very good tool, but the difficulty in getting local service or more information is pushing us to look for another tool.

It is complex to set up, at least the version that we currently have.

There are no stability issues.

There are no scalability issues.

When we reach out to Microsoft, the service rates at eight or nine. However, when we work with local partners, the rating drops to five or six.

Positive

We have very few problems with the system. The only issues arise when we have to migrate from Microsoft Exchange or with 365 accounts. These problems are more related to mail accounts rather than SCSM itself.

With our current installation, I would rate it at seven. If we could access all available tools, the rating would increase to nine.

With correct configuration, you can access and provide service quickly to all end users.

I would rate the return on investment at four or five.

I am not sure about the pricing as I do not have experience with it.

There are some high-end tools such as Salesforce. There are also some local software developments from Colombia that might have a lower price, but they do not have all the tools we would prefer.

Salesforce offers a more user-friendly environment for configuration and setup. However, Salesforce is more expensive than SCSM.

I work in Ecuador for the city, and it has been difficult for us to migrate to web-based software. All our software is now in our data center at the office, making it difficult to migrate to the cloud.

We need more information about setup procedures and a more user-friendly front end. Salesforce is more expensive than SCSM.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate SCSM a 9.

We are using it as co-management, working from SCCM and some from Intune. However, there are dissimilarities between SCCM and Intune, so we use SCCM for specific tasks or policies.

Currently, with the system, we have some remote tool functionality which is not available with Intune. We are also planning to decommission the system and transfer the workload to Intune, utilizing autopilot.

SCCM provides remote tool functionality, which is not in Intune. This is one reason we are using SCCM.

From an admin point of view, Intune has more features and is easier to manage compared to SCCM. SCCM is a little complex for the admin point of view. Although some engineers at Microsoft are good, the support often lacks expertise, and response times are slow.

I have been working with SCSM for the last three to four years.

I would rate stability eight out of ten.

From an admin point of view, Intune has more features and is easier to manage. SCCM is complex for the admin point of view due to its intricate scalability.

I would rate Microsoft support five out of ten. Response times are slow, and engineers often lack the necessary product knowledge. Some solutions come from our side before support can provide answers.

Neutral

We moved from VMware to Microsoft.

The setup was done years ago, and I was not part of the team that implemented it.

Tableau is integrated, and we mostly pick up reports from Tableau.

If someone asks only for Windows devices, I would recommend SCCM. For both iOS, Android, and Windows environments, I recommend Intune.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The use cases for the platform include managing servers, endpoints, and desktops to apply operating system updates and address the company's security requirements. 

When I contact a customer using this tool, I don't receive requests to change it. Customers have a large ecosystem of Microsoft solutions, including SCSM, SQL Server, and other tools. They rely on SCSM because it integrates well with their existing Microsoft infrastructure.

The platform's valuable feature is the ability to apply patches to the operating system.

One customer uses another management tool, SiteScope, alongside SCSM. They might be looking for additional functionalities that SCSM could integrate.

Thus, the product could include more features similar to other tools. 

I have been working with SCSM for about one year.

I rate the product stability a ten. 

I rate the platform's scalability an eight. 

The solution's setup process is relatively straightforward due to the familiar deployment steps similar to other Microsoft solutions.

The platform is competitively priced.

I advise others to contact an expert for optimal licensing and implementation of the solution. I rate the platform an eight. 

We are using SCSM for ticket management where users send an email to a specific address configured in our service manager server. The email is then automatically collected to open tickets. We also developed a web portal to help users open change management and service management tickets. Every user who wants to access the information system needs to open a service management ticket. 

For any business change, a change request needs to be opened, including workflow validation from department managers. When we need to change or migrate servers or applications, a change request is necessary, containing different activities such as impact studies on the information system and recovery impacts.

SCSM helps us keep organized by tracking all user demands and change requests. However, the reporting is not sufficient to provide a clear view of ongoing projects. It helps with daily operations and change request management.

The main features we use constantly are the service request, change request, and incident request modules. The help desk team deals mostly with incident requests, whereas the operations teams handle change and service requests.

The major issues with SCSM include its severe slowness, especially on the client side, and the lack of comprehensive reporting tools. It also lacks clear future development and improvement from Microsoft, and we had to develop our own web portal because the default one was not user-friendly.

We have been using SCSM since 2014.

SCSM has been stable since installation without any major issues, although the reporting and speed remain problematic.

The system supports about fifty users, but there is a concern about scaling effectively due to existing slowness and reporting limitations.

We do not currently utilize customer service or support from Microsoft, as the product was initially deployed by PeerSpot and is no longer actively supported.

Neutral

The initial setup was complex and involved multiple teams for various components, requiring significant collaboration to manage the installation and workflow development.

We engaged a local partner for the initial deployment and worked with Microsoft engineers to develop the necessary workflows.

We are considering a change in solution due to the reporting deficiencies and the lack of further product enhancements, which impacts our ROI evaluation.

We acquired SCSM for free with our Microsoft Endpoint Manager purchase, and we only paid for the integration process.

I would not recommend SCSM in its current form due to the need for better integration, improved reporting, and a more functional web portal.

Our company's clients prefer SCSM. It is also useful for areas consisting of applications, deployments, server updates, and security updates.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from areas like security updates and deployments. The product's valuable features in our company are attached to the applications and deployments.

For any weaknesses in the product, our company's security team maintains the application for our environment.

The logs and reporting-related features of the product have certain shortcomings where improvements are required.

I have been using SCSM for ten years. My company is a customer of the tool.

My company has a local team to deal with Microsoft-based environments. If there is a need for support, help is provided by the local vendors for Microsoft in Turkey. Sometimes, my company also receives professional support from Microsoft engineers.

If the support required from Microsoft by our company falls under the category known as severity A, the support provided is professional and can be described as an outstanding process handled by Microsoft engineers. There is a dip in the level of support quality provided by Microsoft engineers if the support required from Microsoft by our company falls under the category known as severity B.

I have experience with workstations under Microsoft, Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft SQL Server, and a lot of other Microsoft tools.

I have experience with third-party applications like ManageEngine.

My company wants to deploy and use the product on an on-premises model.

Three to four administrators are required to take care of the product.

The solution offers good productivity at a low price point.

The integration capabilities of the product are directly related to the server or products under Microsoft Windows. The product cannot be integrated with other operating systems like Linux.

The tool's self-service portal impacts user satisfaction in our company since we deal with more than 1,000 servers and 5,000 users and clients who use the solution.

I use Microsoft Windows for Software Center.

SCSM is a product that is included in the licenses that my company has purchased from Microsoft. My company is looking at other products that can help our environment in areas like performance management, log management, and other issues that we couldn't handle with SCSM.

I rate the overall tool a six or seven out of ten.

We use SCSM to manage all of our IT operations, including incident and service requests and problem management.

The solution is deployed on-premises. There are about 400 users in my organization, but we're hoping to increase that number to 1,000.

The solution could be more simple. For example, it takes a lot of work to create reports. It runs on Microsoft SQL queries. Creating custom reports on ManageEngine takes less work from the administrator.

Microsoft System Center Service Manager has a large infrastructure and a large number of servers. For production and creation, it needs about five servers. For comparison, ManageEngine just requires one server, and it includes everything out of the box.

The setup process could be improved.

In the next release, I would like to see a mobile application for users to open tickets. I would also like the ability to deploy the solution on the cloud.

I have used SCSM for about five years.

I would rate the stability as eight out of ten.

It's scalable.

Technical support is helpful and the response time is fast, but sometimes it takes too long for issues to be resolved.

I have also used ManageEngine.

Installation isn't simple, but it's doable. You need to read the documentation first.

Creating the template isn't simple, and you need to restart a lot of services to get the new templates ready for use. It needs to be restarted for the new changes to take effect.

I would rate the pricing as two out of five.

Microsoft never sells Service Manager alone. In order to sell Service Manager, we need to take the entire System Center family, including the testing system, client management system, the monitoring System, and the virtual machine management system. It's a big family, and Service Manager is one component in this family.

Microsoft forces the customer to purchase the whole family in order to use one component.

I would rate this solution as seven out of ten.

I use this solution for managing client devices, system deployment, application deployment, and customization for their client devices. I work in a consultancy company providing services based on client devices.

I find many features valuable: OS deployment, application installation, packages, programs, compliance settings, reporting services, and so on. I've used SCSM a lot, and its features are valuable.

It would be good if Microsoft added custom attributes or tagging like in Jamf.

I have used the solution for 20 years.

The product is stable.

SCSM is scalable. Even moving into the cloud, adding management by introducing Intune into the ecosystem, or adding additional distribution points, SCSM is pretty scalable in all those aspects.

A small company just needs one server. As SCSM can work for multiple roles for bigger companies, you can eliminate a certain server as a specific role, so you can scale quite easily.

I did not need much Microsoft support, but whenever I have had to contact them, I can open a support ticket and have an engineer assigned to it, so there are no issues with them.

Positive

I have previously used SMS by Microsoft, which is System Management Software. I have also used a similar solution in the Mac ecosystem called Jamf.

Several things could be done in Jamf that could not be done in SCSM, such as custom attributes or tagging. In Jamf, I could build several reports based on custom attributes that were straightforward to define for dynamic group memberships. And SCSM is different. If you have a specific need in Jamf, you can cover it easily. But in SCSM, you have to tweak something, and that's quite complex. The two ecosystems target different client and customer needs. I cannot compare them because both of them, in their specific cases, are covering specific needs. SCSM or Intune for Windows devices is pretty good, and Jamf for Mac devices are both good. But as Mac and Windows are completely different stories, the tools used for managing one or the other are also decent. If Microsoft has to learn something from Jamf, it would be custom attributes or tagging.

The complexity of the initial setup depends on the hierarchy. If you define a quite complex hierarchy, then the deployment is complex. I find the initial setup straightforward. If you know what to do, the initial setup is straightforward.

It takes three days to implement the infrastructure. After that, it's a matter of operating the service.

You'll need a team of four or five people because there are several components, such as database, storage, and networking, and all have to be aligned. But their roles depend on what you want to do. If you want a single administrator and separate and define several roles depending on if you want a system administrator on one side, active directory on another side, or packages on another side, then their roles depend.

The pricing is reasonable.

I recommend the solution for any company that needs to manage client devices, operating system deployment, applications, and application portals for users to install some apps or the IT department that needs the portal for several applications or drivers or any other customization required by the business. It's a good product.

If you want to use SCSM, you should read, learn, and keep testing the product. Building a lab on your premises would be good to test and learn the software. If you don't feel confident in setting or experimenting, just try it outside the customer's ecosystem.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I am operating two deployments of SCSM at one site. One is completely on-premise, and the other one is a co-management with Intune and is cloud-based.

For our cloud-based deployment of SCSM, the Autopilot is the best feature.

We have had some issues with the SCSM on-premise deployment version in the imaging aspects. 

Using the SCSM with Intune cloud we are able to manage only the workstations and endpoints, along with the mobile devices. Intune is not capable of managing other devices, such as Mac or Windows servers. Intune has a very limited Mac capability, it would be good if they focused on that area.

I have been using SCSM for approximately two years.

I have found SCSM to be stable.

SCSM is scalable.

We have approximately three million devices that are using the SCCM solution.

We have a partnership with Microsoft, in case of any issues, we directly reach out to them and open a ticket.

The quality of the support depends on the issue we are facing. Sometimes it a while to be connected to the person that can resolve the problem. However, on average, the support is good.

We did evaluate other solutions before choosing SCSM, such as InfraStruXure Central, Ivanti, and IBM BigFix. The GUI and the features that are available in SCCM are more flexible for the administration to manage, compared to IBM BigFix or Ivanti.

I rate SCSM an eight out of ten.

It is our ITSM solution.

It is quite scalable.

There is no development with this product, and we had to go and buy additional ITSM solutions to sit on top of it. We had to buy products from companies like Cireson and Cased Dimensions in order to get the functionality that we need out of it. So, we're using Service Manager as an engine, rather than as a full-blown product. It is the engine, but we have other products sitting on top of it to make it work properly.

It has limited stability and support, and it is also complex to deploy.

I have been using this solution for nearly 10 years.

Its stability is limited. There are bugs in it that Microsoft isn't fixing.

It is quite scalable.

It is fairly limited. So, we buy additional support from another company.

It is complex to deploy.

It comes free with the enterprise agreement that we have, but the expense really is in having to buy another product to sit on top of it to make it work properly. You wind up having to buy additional support and additional products with their own support and maintenance costs on top of that.

I would not recommend this solution. If I was starting again, I wouldn't get this product. We didn't have to buy it, and it was free with our enterprise agreement, but if I was going again, I'd go to the market and buy another product.

If you've got Service Manager, I would recommend buying a solution from Cireson. They provide a browser interface and a whole pile of additional applications that sit on top of it. That's how you can get the features that are not in the product itself. The product is just an engine, and it is not very user-friendly.

I would rate it a four out of ten. 

I am using this solution as a customer to do what it was built for: to help us be more efficient in tracking and delivering our services.  

The most valuable feature in this solution for me is the reporting.  

I have not made up my mind about what really needs to be improved. Overall, I am pleased with it mostly because it supplies the reports I need. As far as other features, it performs what I need it to do.  

Probably the price and configuration could both be a bit improved.  

I have been using SCSM (System Center Service Manager) for the last three years.  

We have not had any bugs or glitches with the stability of the solution that I have noticed. It is stable.  

We currently have 25 users for the product. It is a mixture of engineers and end-users.  

We have your own team for maintenance and do not really need to use support.  

We previously used SCCM (System Center Configuration Manager) and SCCPM (Software Configuration, Change, and Process Management).  

We actually still use all of these solutions. We just apply them in different use cases.  

The initial setup was pretty simple. The deployment part did not take long at all.  

It is an amazing solution but the pricing could be improved to be a little more competitive.  

I would recommend this as a solution to other people considering it. But just as with everything and anything, people need to educate themselves as to the services that the application offers. It has to fit the need to be worth the cost and effort to understand.  
 
On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate System Center Service Manager as an eight. It would not be higher because nothing is perfect and it does have some faults.