JIRA Service Management Reviews

The primary use case is for support. I open, support, and service a request. There is also some follow up with the activities.

Some of the most valuable features are simplicity, ease of configuration, and ease of customization. Overall, it's very easy to work with.

At times you will need add-ons or additional software, so built-in features would be helpful. For example, a built-in SIEM.

It would be interesting to add an Atlassian SIEM. I think it would be great!

I have been working with JIRA Service Desk for one year.

This solution is stable and we have not experienced any bugs.

This solution is scalable. They have a good architecture with good settings, especially the data center architecture. You can download scalable architecture.

I have not used the technical support.

The initial setup was simple.

It takes a maximum of one month to deploy this solution for a medium-sized company.

At times, customers request regular assistance for maintenance as they do not have anyone internally. It's an on-demand implementation or improvement.

We implement this solution for our customers. Most of our customers are medium-sized companies, but we do have some that are larger.

It's not really expensive, especially when you compare to ServiceNow or other solutions, and it's not expensive to maintain.

There are additional costs for add-ons that require additional software to support the specific add-on.

There are not only custom licenses, they have licenses for add-ons as well.

Globally, it's an interesting cost perspective.

Because it is simple, you can start small and develop. You can customize more and more depending on your requirements. It's quite simple to configure.

I would say start and improve. Often you have to think about everything because it will be painful later on if you need to add customization that comes with JIRA Service Desk. This is the reason that you can start in one month. It's a simpler approach.

It's a good product.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We're a service provider. We implement the solution for our clients. 

Typically clients use Jira more around incident reporting management and resolution of queries, or SLA management. Then, sometimes, they need a range of compliance SLS's such as knowledge management.

It's easy to set up the solution.

JIRA Service Desk is really good when you have a primitive environment where most of the Atlassian applications are already present. However, if you are just using JIRA Service Desk for making leads for an IPS and solution, then it becomes really difficult to get all these IPS and capabilities up and running. This is due to the fact that in a native application, we don't get all these capabilities. 

JSD has some analytics, but it's pretty much basic and simple dashboards. There's no mobile application for JSD. It really would benefit from better implementation with other vendors. We're heavily reliant on some external marketplace applications.

We don't find there's support for CMDB.

The notifications are limited. That is good if a client environment is small enough and they do not require any advanced or mature use cases, but if they require it, then that's when we face a lot of issues because Jira Service Desk doesn't compliment such advanced decisions.

Jira should offer package solutions and be much more focused on giving advanced capabilities. If they are not developing advanced capabilities, at least, what they can do is focus on providing a packaged solution to give their customers the flexibility to choose what type of business package they want - whether its operations based or finance related. 

I've been using the latest version of the solution for the last couple of months. Before that, I used it last year as well. Overall, I've been using the solution close to a year now.

There are minor bugs and issues, however, I would describe the solution as quite stable.

With the number of applications on the marketplace continuing to grow, I would say the solution is quite scalable. The only challenges with scalability come with advanced use cases. There are some issues around their IPS and tools. Jira has the capabilities, however, they don't sell well for advanced cases. 

Still, if you are talking about the ability to scale using tools and plugins, I would say that usually, Jira can scale quite effectively for clients.

When deploying or implementing, or even sometimes in day to day maintenance, if we encounter some issues, we will connect with technical support initially. There were a few issues, for example, around a server's speed and Jira wasn't quite performing well. As time has passed, it's gotten better. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's fairly easy to get everything up and running.

In our experience, deployment takes about two to there months, depending on the complexity.

In terms of the process we follow, we usually come back to do some groundwork around what exactly the requirements are. We ask: what are we trying to solve? Then we do an assessment of the client environment. We try to identify which is the best fit in terms of applications for this deployment. Once decided, we run tests to see if the application fits the necessary criteria. We try to identify what the default configurations will be and make sure we clarify those before going ahead with our deployment strategy. 

The number of people involved in the deployment varies from client to client. If it's a small deployment, only five to ten people are needed. They may not be working all at the same time, but they'd have various roles in both deployment and maintenance. Afterwards, there will always be about three or four individuals that track support. These numbers can increase based on the number of tickets or the size of the organization. The highest amount of people we've worked with was about 30.

We implement the solution for our clients.

I'm not sure what the exact pricing is, but it's tiered based on the number of users. If a company has 10 users it might cost X but with 50 users it will cost Y. Outside solutions, such as plugins, may come at an extra cost. Apart from that, I don't think Jira has additional costs.

While we largely deal with cloud deployments, we did recently have a client that requested an on-premises deployment.

The types of clients we have are small or medium-sized enterprises typically.

On a cost-basis, the product offering is very good.

Jira is very customer-centric. They really try to help users make the most out of their solution as well as other products. The plugins are all designed to make Jira even easier to use, even more user friendly, and serve to bridge the gap of features Jira might lack.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. We hear a lot of feedback from clients, and they mention the solution has some limitations.

One of the primary things we use JIRA for is the Kanban Board feature. We use it for managing our projects and issues as well as accountabilities within the company. We have a homegrown — I suppose you could call it a Six Sigma type — approach. We identify the six main projects and the six areas where you can make the biggest difference within the company. Then we identify six projects that we're going to work on within those areas.

We use the Kanban Board extensively. We use the Confluence facility on the backend. Really,  we use Confluence and JIRA both together: Confluence for global planning and JIRA for issue and project management.

It simply helps us shape our project management workflow.

The implementation that we have is highly customized, so I can't talk to the capabilities of JIRA product independently because I'm not familiar with all of the different things that can be done with it. It's very useful in terms of the dashboard for the office, and the overview of all the different issues and props, what's on backlog, what's in progress, what's been resolved. That kind of thing, is very helpful.

One of the best additions to this product would be a single centralized point in which to store all the documents that are involved in progressing with tasks. For instance, if you're working on a JIRA task and you attach a document to it, not everybody will share a centralized storage facility where all the documents are. The idea would be to make it so everybody can see (or view) the same current document. They would get specific privileges (e.g., view or edit). But if a document is shared now, as it is in potentially an older version, it may not be accurate. Better to share the current document so that everyone has the same information.

Centralized document storage would allow all documents to be linked to any issue where it was pertinent rather than having to be attached to specific issues and limiting the viewers.

The product itself seems stable. We don't run into issues where we blame JIRA directly for failing.

JIRA can really scale perfectly for our needs. We have both end users and admins using this product. Really, everybody in our company uses it. No one has a problem with getting access and we scale as needed.

I haven't had any access to JIRA's technical support at all directly, I've never had any need to call them in. Generally, that would be someone else's responsibility. I'm not aware of having anyone in the company having issues with support on call or other contact.

We have looked for solutions in terms of the enterprise applications that are used by my company. We already have Confluence, we have JIRA Service desk, and we have Quest KACE Endpoint Management. We also use VMware AirWatch, virtualization productivity, and Dell hardware. A solution that works with these existing tools means that there is lest to change and train.

I wasn't involved in the setup of JIRA, so I can't really comment that much on that aspect of the product. It was set up by one of my other team members. However, I've been told it was a relatively straightforward process. The customization, which is substantial, has been difficult. That is obviously not the fault of the product itself.

We had specific goals in using a suite of products and we are doing our own deployments based on goals that we define. Essentially we didn't need outside help.

When considering a solution it is best to stay as standard as possible when adopting it. The further you get off the standard path the more difficult it is to adopt or adapt to other solutions if that becomes necessary or desirable in the future.

I can't actually give it a fair appreciation at this stage of the capabilities of JIRA as a stand-alone product because of the way we have implemented it in a cluster of other products. 

At this stage, I would give it a five out of ten. This is mostly because we rely on other products for certain services or features. If JIRA had more comprehensive coverage of what we require, or if it was easier to implement what it already does, the rating would be higher.

One of the main advantages of JIRA is that it can be customized for our solutions. I live in Iran and we translated some parts of it into Persian and customized it with extra features. We hid other features to customize it right to the point. We provide this solution for our customers.

It helps us shape it for our project management workflow. We are a software development team, a software company. Internally, we also use Microsoft Team Foundation, or TFS, for our development team, while we use JIRA Service Desk for our contact points. We use JIRA for the CRM and Microsoft Team Foundation for internal use.

We designed a single page on JIRA and classified it into three parts. One part reports software bugs, another part to report requirements about software development, and the last part for other requirements or needs. The customer can follow the links that we share. The system also sets permissions for our customers. I think we shared the agent mode. JIRA has two modes, one for administration and one for customers. We shared the customer mode.

Usually, our customers need two permissions, depending on their hierarchy. One level is the manager and the other is for a regular customer. We share it with our customer at two levels. The manager sees all of the requests that are sent from the organization. The regular user-level allows one to view only their own request.

It is simple to use. It is clear for our customer, who usually don't know English very well. The simple user interface helps them use the software.

An improvement they could add is a better management dashboard. We only use the dashboard for the administration mode. We have a dashboard that reports the state of bugs or requirements. However, customers can only view requests that they made. We are not able to share a dashboard with our manager level customers to show them all of the requests in a quick dashboard.

For Service Desk, I think the product now is very good and complete. Only the management dashboard for customers is a feature we would like to see in a future release. Maybe it is available already and we just can't find it.

JIRA has very good stability. We haven't had any problems with it.

We use JIRA in parallel with TFS. We connect them with a JIRA provided API. We use this API to connect with other products. Sometimes we must program for it to download some plugins and add to JIRA, for example. We can connect JIRA with other products this way.

One of our technicians did the setup. I am the manager of a technical support team and I delegated this part of the project to one of my technicians. I think he ran a Windows server for the deployment. He installed JIRA on it and configured it. He searched how to install JIRA on a Microsoft Windows server and read the manual. I think we had no problem with the deployment process. He set it up, but I didn't hear about any problem with it.

Actually in Iran we don't have copyright or intellectual property, so we can use JIRA for free.

It's uncomfortable, but because we don't have any laws about copyright, we must do it. We also do this with other products, like Microsoft's for example. We usually get them free. We have no problem using the full feature set free.

I searched about the top CRM in the world and compared features. Eventually, we selected JIRA.

I would rate this as nine out of ten. If they add a dashboard for management customers, it would be a ten.

I'm primarily trying to use the solution as an IT Service Management solution.

The customization is the most valuable aspect of the solution. I can customize full workflows. It's very flexible. We can use mail if we want to open requests as well. 

The solution offers access to add-ons that are also very helpful. 

The solution should be more formalized. It could be more user-friendly.

If we are talking about IT service management, I think more features related to problem management need to be within the solution. If you want something for supplier management or complication management, you have to buy some add-ons from the market to help you with this. However, there needs more enhancements regarding that both on the solution and with available add-ons. 

Arabic support is very important. It should be included on the solution itself, not provided separately. The reporting features should include more how-to guidance.

The solution is stable.

In terms of handling data, the solution is very scalable. Right now, we have about 50 users on the system.

Technical support is okay. They help us if we have something initialized. They're helpful and professional. 

We previously used FS from Nexus, a Mac-specific manager, and a CS manager, among others, for various types of service management. We were trying to replace the IT Service management solutions with Jira mainly as a non-technical box for a non-technical cost and push management.

The initial setup has a medium level of difficulty. Deployment took about ten days.

We did the implementation ourselves with the help of some tutorials, which really helped to build the system.

When we bought the solution, I recall there was one license option limited to 50 users. There is an enterprise version as well.

We are using the on-premises deployment model.

It's a good, stable solution. It can help open the IT Solution management backing if you're just looking to do some enhancements.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

The primary use case for this solution is project management.

The deployment model we used was cloud-based.

Depending on the project your deployment model would be using a hybrid cloud or a private cloud.

One of the things that I love about JIRA is that it connects the team together, and this is something that I will always need.

I believe that JIRA is one of the best project management tools. I like the history, the dimensioning, and how I can configure a space based on my preferences or the project circumstances. I can update the workflow on the project that I am working on.

One of the issues is that this solution keeps changing within a short period. 

During the updates, when another version gets released, whatever I am tracking at that time gets lost and I have to type it all over again.

Some enhancements can be done on the GANTT chart. It is not as user-friendly, and not easy to get established in JIRA.

I would like to see the documents open in the same browser, and not need to download it each time. It is not easy to be established, it requires a lot of work to keep it up.

In the next release, I would like to see more work in preferences. It would be great.

The solution is stable.

This solution is scalable. It's flexible.

We have not used the customer service/technical support. We use the technical team at our company.

The setup was a bit complex.

If it is on the cloud then it's easy to establish but if it's on-premises it is more complicated.

We had competitor options. It was between TSL and JIRA.

I wanted JIRA for the UI and its usability.

We are resellers for this solution.

I would recommend the JIRA Service desk, but there is always room for improvement.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The basic configuration and the basic abilities provided are the most valuable aspects of the solution.

Usability needs improvement. To configure it, you need to be well versed in JIRA administration. It's not very intuitive.

The stability of the solution is okay.

The potential to scale the solution depends on what the organization aims to do but it's good.

The solution offers lots of information on the website to assist with technical queries. There are also many community sites to help you troubleshoot any problems.

The usual setup is fine but to configure anything that is out of the box, you really need to understand the abilities of the solution.

Deployment takes about two hours.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd rate it higher, but it is expensive and very hard to customize.

JIRA Service Desk is used as a support solution with the support team to manage support service delivery to customers. I coached a big banking company using JIRA Service Desk to record customer incidents that require support. With the product, we have two different layers of incident management. Level one is for the call center and level two is for the agents who repair or try to resolve the incident using a software team.

If their team can't resolve the problem, we create particular bug issues in JIRA software, and the development team creates a plan to correct the issue and confirms the experience in order to provide a resolution. The issue is returned back to layer two, and layer two discusses the problem with layer one. After that, layer one speaks to the customer and explains the status of the problem.

It helps us to provide better customer service.

The best part of the application for me is the ability to manage the issues. Within the different layers, you can set priorities, define task management, assign tasks to the software team or to different groups or functions to help manage solutions in JIRA. I use different features in JIRA Service Desk for the software team. It is a broad solution that affects different layers of the organization.

Because the software team and development team can use the solution to manage and track projects more efficiently and work together as a team, they find and resolve problems better.

I think that JIRA Service Desk is a very good product and that it is full of features that work well to manage tasks. It has the flexibility to handle many different activities and it is very good at this. Especially in the latest version, it has some new features and capabilities that were added so that it is even better.

The one thing I would like to see is better capabilities to integrate with products other than parts of the Atlassian system. For example, if there is a Microsoft product that is better for another team the integration may be difficult or impossible.

Any one business process software can't do everything a system needs. For example, I have experience with JIRA and TFS (Team Foundation Server). TFS is a very good application and a good solution for software development teams. It's not the perfect solution for all parts of an organization and maybe does not fit an organization's needs well. In some cases, it may be better. It depends on the use. If you want a broad solution for your company, for task management, or issue tracking, TFS is not a good solution. For software development, TFS is very, very good and may be just what you need.

After using the product and knowing the benefits of TFS, I thought that combining the systems would be the best solution: the combined system could help the company to decrease the time it took to process software issues. I think JIRA Service Desk does not have features that are as good for tracking fix times or bottlenecks in the process. You can use different plug-ins for JIRA Service Desk to add some functionality, but these plug-ins are very expensive. It would be nice if JIRA Service Desk added in some of these features for this type of support.

But about the plugins, I found one plug-in — its name is Actionable Metric I think — and it is $3000. That is very expensive for users in Iran. For most customers, I would not be able to propose this solution because it's very expensive. But it is also very important to some of the projects I consult with. Because of that, it eliminates JIRA Service Desk from consideration, because we can't integrate them into the system.

The product seems very stable. We have never had a problem.

I think the product is very scalable as long as the hardware can handle the usage.

We have never had a problem. Two years ago, I had a launch of Service Desk in a bank in Iran and we had 8,000 issues to track for the core banking system.

This launch was very, very good because we used an IT framework in this company and returned used a post egress system for response to bank customers or bank users. We could use Jira software for the response to this incident and resolve that.

We had 8,000 issues two years ago, and the company continues to use this product and I am sure that they have been able to scale and track more.

The Atlassian technical support is actually very good and responsive.

I worked in a different company and when I was there they were using a different solution. It was an airplane company in Iran. For part of my job, I was tasked with finding the best solution for managing tasks in different layers of the organization — different tasks for different departments. For example, I wanted them to record requirements for cost and team level or management level. Unfortunately, with the product they were using, I could not find these solutions for task management. As this was critical, I needed to do some research into other task management solutions. After a search I found some reviews on ITCentralStation.com, I found from the reading that the Atlassian system would be better to serve our needs because of the features. I looked at other solutions and reviews but I finally chose the JIRA system. 

This is the best application for me because it supported different solutions and could be one big solution for different layer of the organization using JIRA Service Desk, JIRA software, or JIRA Core.

While I think the installation and deployment were very simple for me, the company should have different ways to find solutions independent of technical support and they need a better installation guide for installing different applications. My team and I tried to do an installation on the last server for a new client in a different environment than we usually use. We installed different portals for addressing that and I have had experience installing two or three of the top DevOps tools. This was very easy by comparison.

There have occasionally been some problems, but it is usually very good and very simple.

I am an Agile development coach and systems consultant and our team does our installations ourselves.

I think I had the opportunity to learn a few things by working with JIRA Service Desk. It has been a good solution and supports good practices, but it is not everything every company needs. I can't find a better single solution for a better approach to tracking and better customer satisfaction. I have a better picture of customer needs and gradation.

I have more experience in JIRA software because I worked with it in many different companies now. Some years ago I was a Java Software developer and had a lot of experience with Scrum and agile development and we used JIRA software. I think I can speak better about JIRA software because I was a software developer.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate JIRA Service Desk as a ten. For my experience, it is the best product on the market for use in enterprise installations.