JIRA Service Management Reviews

We use the product for our procurement processes and our service desk. We use it for our different teams working on the development side for smaller projects, as well as capital planning.

We have the solution deployed on-prem and on the cloud. We have only one team on the cloud and about 35 teams working on-prem.

In Jira Service Management, the most beneficial features are process improvement, workflows, and escalations.

Jira Service Management should be more user-friendly, like other tools. We configure different projects on these tools, so it's okay for us, but Jira could be a little more simplified for clients. Similarly, there should be licenses for frequent and infrequent users.

I have used Jira Service Management for four to six years.

The solution is quite stable. With 30 teams on the solution, there must be more than 30 projects with multiple requests coming in, but two people are enough to handle Jira. I rate the solution's stability an eight or a nine out of ten.

We have about 1,800 employees in our organization, with more than 30 teams working on Jira. The users are all from procurement teams, finance teams, the capital planning team, the service desk, the development team, the networking team, the data center team, and the operations team as well. We are delivering tickets to our operations team. Everyone is using Jira right now. I rate the scalability of the solution a seven to eight out of ten.

The initial setup is very easy. Initial deployment wouldn't take more than a week because it's not a big deal. The configuration and other tasks will definitely take some time due to discussions with teams and project configuration. One person is enough for deployment. We have two people providing support for Jira.

I rate the pricing a ten out of ten because it is very highly priced. We have paid $20,000 recently for a one-year license for our on-prem server.

We have also procured ServiceNow. Other tools like ServiceNow and monday.com provide simplified user interfaces.

We have started moving into cloud deployment because Jira has discontinued the support for the on-prem servers. Moreover, we are moving to the cloud to reduce the cost. There are many users who are licensed for our on-prem server, but they are not using it. We have 1,800 employees, but out of 1,800, there are 1,000 employees using Jira on a daily basis. We are paying the cost per user. There should be licenses for frequent and infrequent users. For example, my manager logged in once in one quarter or after two months or one month, and we are paying $20 per user.

If they want to save money and have the ability to make workflows by themselves, they can use it for startup companies. Startup companies should instantly go to Jira because it can help them in all departments. They won't need to buy different software for different departments, so it's better to go for Jira and make workflows for each department, which will all be using the same software. That way, they can interconnect within the departments.

I rate Jira Service Management a seven out of ten.

Currently, I'm not working with an organization that is using Jira, but my previous clients have used it. The last client had 15,000 licensed users, of which about 7,000 or 8,000 were active. I'm not sure how many of those were using it on a daily basis, but I'm guessing it was about a third.

Jira gets the basics right in terms of the Product Backlog and a Scrum Board that Scrum Teams can use to manage Sprint Backlogs.

The queries are weak and lack advanced functionality. You can do rudimentary queries, but you can't aggregate. You can't filter a lot of things that would be useful, so you need to use plugins to write writing advanced queries. I run into problems when working with different organizations because they always have restrictions on what kind of plugins they allow.

I have been using Jira for around 14 years, and Jira Service Management specifically for about half a year.

Jira is fairly stable.

The user interface becomes sluggish when there are many items in the database, especially large Product Backlogs. I've had page-load times of more than 30 seconds on modern clients. That's just unacceptable. A lot of things are processed through the user interface when it might be smarter to process them through the backend. It tends to be quite slow because it's a JavaScript user interface with a lot of dynamic processing, and a lot of it is run sequentially, single-threaded. For this reason, Jira especially benefits from modern browsers with a fast JavaScript engine, such as Chrome or Edge, and of CPUs specifically optimized for dynamic website processing, such as the Apple M series.

Atlassian support is excellent. I contacted support once directly because I was using a free license on a pet project, and I had to log in again, or they would deactivate my account. I logged in to prevent that from happening, but it still was deactivated, so I contacted them. They took care of it. 

Most of my work is with internal IT departments who administer Jira as an on-premise installation. They provide internal support to users, and my invoke Atlassian as a second level on their behalf. The on-premise installations often have lousy support. They tend to be over-bureaucratized IT departments that don't care much about user needs. It's just the kind of environment that brings that out.

I rate Jira 10 out of 10 for ease of setup. The setup is handled centrally by an administrator. I also use the Atlassian software as a service, so the setup is negligible. It's ready to go out of the box, unless by all means you want to host it yourself.

We never calculated the return on investment. Jira is useful when your teams are virtual and distributed across several sites or when there are many items, especially when they need to be tracked for compliance reasons. Software like this is always useful in those cases. It may be less valuable if everyone is in the same place and there are only few larger items to handle, in an environment that gives more leeway in terms of compliance.

The license is based on the number of users. Jira gets costly when scaling up to high numbers of users. At a certain point, it might be more cost-effective to create a custom solution or use something else. 

I rate Jira Service Management seven out of 10. The basics are good, but I'd like to see improvements in user-interface performance and scalability. Querying functionality is also limited. It would be nice if Jira allowed more advanced queries. The user interface doesn't lend itself to working concurrently, with multiple users having a conversation and using the system concurrently. Those are areas for improvement. I would rate it a 10 if it had those. But it does not.

Before deploying Jira, I recommend researching the product to see if it meets your needs. Jira fits a very wide range of needs. But there are a few situations where it is not optimal, or needs to be used in an augmented way. For example, it shouldn't be used to support Scrum events directly, because the user interface doesn't lend itself to working concurrently. You need to update frequently to see changes made by others, and actions are generally sequential. If I need a solution, e.g., for a Daily Scrum, I'd much rather use something like Mural or Miro, and then have it interface with Jira. While Jira can ultimately still be used in these scenarios, as the backend, it benefits from some kind of digital whiteboard on the UI end that allows people to work concurrently with it.

Feature tracking is a useful feature of JIRA Service Management. If there are multiple people in a team in an agile environment, it's very difficult to track whether something has gone to production or a feature has been worked on.

We use JIRA Service Management for tracking purposes, planning, and execution.

Field addition and removal features are not very intuitive in JIRA Service Management.

I have been using JIRA Service Management for six to seven years.

We are satisfied with the solution’s stability.

I rate JIRA Service Management a nine or ten out of ten for stability.

Around 15,000 to 20,000 users use the solution in our organization.

I rate JIRA Service Management a nine out of ten for scalability.

The solution's initial setup is easy.

I rate JIRA Service Management a nine out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

JIRA Service Management has helped our organization save time.

JIRA Service Management is deployed on-cloud in our organization.

Overall, I rate JIRA Service Management a nine out of ten.

JIRA Service Management was used strictly for our client's IT services in my company. Nowadays, the tool caters to business needs, HR, and administrative purposes, including the payroll aspect of my company's clients. The application has taken a different turn by allowing for managing certain relevant business needs as well.

In recent scenarios, JIRA Service Management has helped my company's clients on the automation front, including onboarding or offboarding employees. The product has multiple use cases with multiple departments, one area that gets highly utilized. The tool also helps convert an incident into a change or problem and then trace and track activities with the tool, which is highly leveraged. Integration of JSM with JIRA software on change and problem management to drive the release, and looking at the release on the DevOps chart, are some use cases by businesses.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its SLA, which everybody wants when it comes to a service-based offering. The queues in JIRA Service Management play a vital role in allowing its users to define the issue types, further classify them into queues, and then carry on.

In-built chat is missing in JIRA Service Management. To compensate for the missing in-built chat, we have been trying to gain leverage with Slack or Microsoft Teams at the moment since it is important to me who stands between the customer and the agent. The aforementioned area needs improvement because it is a very vital area. Suppose one can get on to something in JIRA Service Management that allows for communication. In that case, it is easier to solve a problem rather than communicate with JIRA through comments which will go back and forth.

In short, an in-built chat option will be good for the solution.

I have been using JIRA Service Management for over six years.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight to nine on a scale of one to ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight to nine on a scale of one to ten.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

I used to previously work with Bitbucket.

I rate the initial setup phase of JIRA Service Management a six out of ten.

The solution is deployed majorly on the cloud.

The time taken to deploy JIRA Service Management depends on multiple factors. It can range from a week to a month, depending upon what kind of customization and plug-in integrations are required.

JIRA Service Management's pricing is pretty decent compared to competitors. I rate the pricing an eight to nine on a scale of one to ten.

To those planning to use it, I would say that if they have a larger customer base, which may cause them to incur some licensing costs, then that is the area where they should look at JSM as a candidate. If some want to automate their internal processes, which could be operational, business-centric, or technical operation, they can use JSM. People who can look at JSM as a candidate are those who have a little bit of asset requirement where they want to manage the instance and opt for the trace and track functionality to find out what exactly is happening and who is honing what in general.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Optimizing the IT and support departments to handle tickets without "going under" in the amount of work that they are doing by organizing the most important and urgent things first.

JIRA SD releases pressure on the IT department and generates statistics. It also makes the department more transparent and helps the employees. JIRA SD also helps for much better feedback on the work being done. All colleagues can see what is happening. When the customer calls, everybody can see what is happening and the feedback via email when a ticket is modified makes sure the customer is informed and does not start calling. This releases pressure too.

Transparency of the system helps both internal and external persons involved. Statistics allow us to deploy resources where needed. It shows problem zones and where more capacity is needed or more training. JIRA SD also makes employees better as it helps them to feel more important when it comes to customer satisfaction.

In general, JIRA has no relation to customers or financials. Therefore, marketplace add-ons are needed to make it work for customer-facing systems.

No, it is running very stable, but only when you have a test system to try out things. As it is designed for developers, it is hard to convince developers to tamper with the production system.

Yes, a plain vanilla installation will only last for less than 100 users. Handling more requires better hardware and configurations.

Atlassian only has a very expensive enterprise support contract (>$100K) or email/JIRA-Ticket support. That support is included when you buy the license. After a year, you only pay for this support and not the license anymore. It is 50% of the new license costs and called a "renewal".

I would suggest to always buy licenses through an Atlassian partner, so you can also rely on their expertise. This way you have two support contacts and does not cost you anything more, such a partner will also come to the location, which Atlassian will never do (Atlassian only does email (JIRA-Ticket support). Phone calls to Atlassian will always be sales support advising to file a JIRA support ticket. Tech support is mostly concentrated in Australia, so there is always a time zone delay for the tickets you raise.

We previously used CRM systems, like Vtiger CRM and SugarCRM. These are not intended for a development department.

Setup (install) is straightforward, but needs tweaking when you are a heavy user.

Setup of the projects is made easier, but there is a lot more you can do beyond initial setup. The automations will really help the company by delegating work the way your company operates.

We implemented with the aid of the vendor and external consultants.

It is hard to calculate costs you do not make.

It is also hard to calculate growing efficiency. 

I can see that JIRA avoids chaos and makes the whole company work more efficient as all feature requests and internal/external requests are all visible in the JIRA tickets and the Confluence wiki system.

It made money the first year already.

Costs are about $50 per user per year. JIRA is sold in user tiers of 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, 2000, 10,000, and unlimited users. It is bad when you have 51 users then the price is based on that 100 user tier. Users at 100 will be the most cost effective. 

JIRA Service Desk has different pricing as it is based on agents. On average, the price is about $300 per agent.

Do not forget to calculate add-on costs. These cost a percentage of the JIRA purchasing costs and are based on the number of JIRA users.

Not really, as it was much better than Bugzilla which we used before.

Buying a software solution is only a half part of the solution (or even less). You need to optimize usage of the software by hiring professionals who will help you to make the most of the software, especially in the beginning. 

Repeat hiring of external consultancy every couple of years as knowledge fades out (people get different tasks to do). You should optimize your software infrastructure and re-evaluate it every three to four years to make optimal use of your infrastructure as the outside world changes very fast. Requirements also change.

I use the IT help desk Level One to manage tickets.

In Jira, when a client creates a ticket, I read the ticket, then I respond to the ticket. After the problem is solved, I assign the ticket to me. 

If the problem is not solved or harder than Level One, I escalate it to Level Two so that level two can handle the problem.

In my role, I get tickets from people, then try to solve them. If I solve it, I assign it to me. If not, I escalate it to someone with better knowledge than me. That's it, my role. I handle some phone calls as well.

The platform is easy to use. We can manage it very easily. 

You can understand easily. It is not complicated.

The initial setup is easy.

It's a reliable product.

I don't have much experience to give a solution for this. I'm not sure what could be improved.

The interface could always be updated and improved. 

I've only used the solution for one month.

The solution is reliable and stable. The performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

I'm not sure if you can scale the solution. It's not an aspect I've studied. 

80% of our company uses it. However, it's not that big of an organization. In our department, there are five of us using the product.

Technical support is so-so. Some of them are good, some bad. It depends on the people. Some people are respectable, some don't really respect others. 

I've worked with Spiceworks in the past.

It's easy to implement. It's not complex or difficult. 

The time it takes to deploy varies. It depends on the complexity of the problem. Some problem takes five to ten minutes, and some problems take an hour. It depends on the problem.

We have admins that can maintain the solution. I tend to manage it myself. 

I'm not sure how much the solution costs. 

I'm a normal user.

I haven't focused a lot on updates. I'm not sure which version we're on. 

I'd recommend the solution. It's easy to use and the fastest way to handle a ticketing system. 

I'd rate the product eight out of ten. 

I use Jira Service Management for product development. Jira Service Desk is largely for handling customer queries and internal ticket management. It helps us with any IT-related requests and also allows customers to submit feedback for the product. So that's how we use Jira Service Management.

Jira Service Management provides workflow management, making it easy for us to track queries and provide solutions. It allows us to review historical data to see how our response time to queries has improved over time. This feedback loop helps us enhance our services and products based on customer input and Net Promoter Score (NPS) feedback.

Different projects benefit from various features. With Jira Service Desk, the simplicity of setting up a quick form and getting the service desk running quickly is very helpful. 

On the Jira Software side, I find the idea management feature valuable. It allows us to maintain a backlog of ideas submitted by customers, employees, and product engineering teams. We can track where ideas originate, follow their development into the product, and engage with customers throughout the process, providing a powerful capability.

One area I see for improvement is the custom options for marking an idea as obsolete. Currently, there are options like "not started" or "not working," but in today's rapidly changing tech world, some ideas can become obsolete quickly. For example, technology may become obsolete or a product may no longer be able to cater to a certain idea due to business pivots or changes in the product strategy. However, there is no specific option to indicate why an idea is considered obsolete, whether it's due to technological changes, business model shifts, or other reasons. Capturing these business-driven changes is not easy within the current setup.

It would be beneficial to have a configurable drop-down where we can filter and categorize the reasons for obsolescence, including technical, standard cases, and, importantly, business reasons. If such an option already exists, it might not have been effectively communicated to customers, as I haven't come across it yet within the customer community.

It's essential to have clear ways to manage and track the obsolescence of ideas based on both technical and business considerations.

I have been using Jira for more than six years. I currently use the latest version.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. Stability is pretty good; there's never a significant downtime. It's been great.

It is highly scalable. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have 500+ end users using this solution. Almost all of our employees use this solution. 

It's used every single day, heavily utilized for Jira Service Desk and Jira Software for product development. We use it to its maximum potential. 

While Jira has a decent community where you can find answers, technical support is fairly okay, mostly due to their strong community. 

Neutral

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a six out of ten, where one being difficult and ten being easy.

Initially, as a completely new user, the interface was not very user-friendly, with many cluttered options. However, once someone showed me how to use it, it became less challenging. But for new users starting with self-service abilities, it's not up to the mark.

The deployment didn't take too long, maybe two or three weeks. It is a self-maintained solution.

We have seen an ROI. The standard way of operating with Jira has optimized time efficiency, which translates to cost efficiency. It allows us to resolve issues more efficiently, although the interface complexity might slightly impact overall efficiency.

The price is not high. I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten,  where one is low price, and ten is high price. It's competitively priced, considering other similar products in the market. 

There are no additional costs. The license we have covered quite a few offerings, like Jira's Confluence page, so that's pretty good.

If you have a large organization with complex processes and need to scale up, Jira Service Management is an excellent platform for service and development management. However, if you're looking to optimize operations, improve services through data insights, and have a large organization, I would recommend considering ServiceNow as well.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. It's a solid solution with some room for improvement, but overall, it's a valuable product for our organization.

We are using Jira Service Management for our internal platform. Most of our drive implementation and usage is around service management.

Internally, we are using the solution for tracking. We also use the solution for our external vendor tracking and support. For example, we have automation copies to track their requests.

Jira Service Management is flexible. It is easy to navigate without requiring extra learning. The user experience has been good.

JIRA Service could benefit from improvements to its voice support. We need to have quick customer care implementation for anyone trying to connect. The platform should connect to the solution.

I have been using Jira Service Management for six years.

Our data is not on a large scale. We have approximately 1,000 employees and we are not having any issues with stability.

JIRA Service Management is straightforward between the customer interface and ourselves. It is scalable with access to the cloud. 

JIRA has upgraded its support. They are now available on time whenever we need them.

Positive

The initial setup took some time because we were using other employee data for the automation platform. It took approximately 24 days to migrate the data to get started, however, this was not complex.

Initially, we used the product vendor to help with the migration and after migration, we relied on our in-house team. We have three mobile teams supporting the platform who can help with configuration and customization. Our developers maintain the solution.

We have an annual license with JIRA Service Management, but it is billed monthly.

We chose JIRA because we did not want a large platform with a lot of features. JIRA is a good platform that can be implemented quickly with a focused offering. 

I would rate JIRA Service Management an eight and a half out of 10 overall.