JIRA Service Management Reviews

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. 

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.

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 use this solution for ITSM solutions including for our help and service desk for user support ticketing and incidents. There are several use cases for this solution and its usage depends on the kind of the company.

The customer portal with connection with our knowledge base has been most valuable. The queues to classify requests and SLIs to measure the quality of the service response and resolution time have also been great. It offers flexibility to configure workflows.

The product could improve its asset management.

I have been using this solution for seven years. 

It is a stable solution. You can deploy it with high availability in a cluster.

This is a scalable solution. You can add clusters or servers if you need on-premise solution or for a cloud solution.

I would rate the technical support for this solution a four out of five. 

The installation is simple but you need to set up a PDF to initiate the configuration and adapt to the customer or user needs. It's very flexible, but you need to complete the configuration work.

The cloud version or AS version takes minutes or hours to deploy. For on-premise version, you need between five to 20 days. It depends on the initial needs of the customer. Compared with other solutions like ServiceNow or EasyVista, this is a solution that can be deployed in less time.

It depends on the number of users but it starts at $20 per month per user. I would rate them a three out of five for pricing. Asset management has an extra cost. The relation between price, functionality and usability is good.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We use Jira to track support incidents, which take a different route than incidents that occur within the project. The workflow has been configured so that tickets raised in Service Management are prioritized based on severity and the SLAs. After that, it gets assigned to the owners. We use it mainly for production issues.

We have around 40 users. Some are business IT, but members of the operations and BAU teams also use it. A few of the higher-level management use it, too. 

Jira lets us customize the workflow to meet our requirements. The email and alert features are also handy.

We have tried exporting some of the test cases into Jira from Excel. The interface for that isn't very user-friendly. 

We're a new company, so we have been using Jira for three-and-a-half years.

Jira is highly stable.

We have a relatively small organization, so Jira scales up enough for our purposes.

I rate Atlassian support eight out of 10. If we get stuck, we can usually find solutions from the Jira user community. 

Positive

I wasn't involved in purchasing Jira, but I believe it is affordable for small organizations.

I rate Jira Service Management eight out of 10. It's easy for new users to learn. A lot of the staff members are new to Jira, but it's simple to pick up and learn how all the processes work.

Jira has many features, and I haven't had the opportunity to work with some of them. There are workarounds to accomplish most things you want to do with the product.

Jira Service Management was a plugin and was not a completely different tool. Earlier, it was just a plugin for regulation. Later, they introduced it as a different tool. Earlier it was known as Jira Service Desk, and now they introduce it as Jira Service Management, a different tool.

If you have a product-based organization, then people used to use it for interacting with the client and getting the requests from the client. If it's internal, there could be a Help desk, IT service desk, or finance service desk, wherever you have to exchange the request between agents and the user base. You have to pay the license only for the agents, not all users. People can create their tickets free of cost. There, you get the portal, and any number of users can create their tickets, and only agents need a license to resolve their tickets and work on their tickets.

Earlier, people used to communicate using email. For a single complaint or for any single task, you are sending so much mail in a chain. If you have to search for any single item in that chain, you go into the first email to figure out where it started, how it started, what the resolution was, and what the discussion was. If you are using Jira Service Management, you can search for the tickets within seconds, and you get the whole history of that issue. It's much easier. There's more clarity.

The most valuable feature they offer is not to build in cost for every user. It's free of cost for your clients. It's free of cost for your internal users. Only, you have to pay the license for people who are going to work on it. If I take the example of an HR Help Desk, if it's an organization of 10,000 people, then 9950 people can log tickets free of cost, and only 50 people need a license to resolve their ticket, if it's a team of 50 people in HR.

The solution is stable.

It scales well. 

Feature-wise, they are improving day by day. I cannot ask for any single feature. We have to worry about how they are increasing their price. Atlassian will increase the price by 5% for most of the tools. It's getting expensive. 

The deployment can be a bit complex, especially for those who are not technical. 

I've been using the solution for seven years. 

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

You can scale the solution whether it is deployed to the cloud or the data center. 

While we might have up to 5,200 people using the solution, we do not require that many licenses, as only those dealing with the tickets are required to be licensed. 

We're using the product quite extensively.

Technical support has been helpful. I have found some bugs in the past, and they did a good job in helping us deal with them.

I am aware of ServiceNow as well. The UI is not as user-friendly, and it costs more. 

I cannot say it's too easy to set up. It is moderate for a technical user, and for a non-technical user, it will be a bit difficult. There are many things you have to configure. You have to configure the permissions and notifications for customers and agents differently. You have to set up the portal and many more things. 

The deployment will not take too long if it's on the cloud. The infrastructure is already ready for you. Since the server is closed, you only have the option of the data center if it's a data center. However, if you are going to deploy it in a data center, then obviously, it'll take more time.

You only need one person if you are deploying on a cloud and two or three people if you are deploying on a data center. If you are deploying on Linux, you may need someone well-versed in Linux. The cloud is an easy, fast deployment as you can do it in a few clicks. The data center takes more people and time. 

You cannot do it own. There are requirements the IT team is used to manage various items, including SSL licensing certificates. You have to get SSL certificates from them. The infrastructure is usually managed by IT, and you must host your instance there, so you need help from them. The implementation is usually a combination of two teams, both IT and non-IT.

We have witnessed an ROI. The solution has paid for itself.

You can choose either monthly or yearly licensing. The cost has recently increased. It might be around $20 to $25 per user license. 

You have three types of plans: standard, basic, and premium. If you need to configure it more, you have to use some plugins from the Atlassian Marketplace. For those, you have to pay whatever they may cost.

I'm a customer and end-user.

We use a few Jira tools across the organization. 

It is one of the best tools in the market right now. If you are looking for any service management tool, then you have to go for it. It's easy to maintain and easy to use. The user interface is very good. 

If you are in a client-based organization, your client will find it more useful as you can integrate with Confluence, and then you can deflect the users to the knowledge parts. You can create your own knowledge information on Confluence, and, without creating tickets, you can redirect your client or user to Confluence.

From there, they can get the information they need. It saves a lot of time for the IT team and empowers the users to do things by themselves. They do not have to follow up. They do not have to create a ticket.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is project management. We use it to record some of our tasks and follow up with our developers to ensure they complete assigned tasks. It is cool and user-friendly. It is easy to navigate and understands most of its functionalities. Additionally, we use it to review developers' tasks and tasks assigned to the QA team from JIRA Service Management to run checks. When we're done with the checks, we do our reports on it, and the project manager can view what has been done. It is a very cool tool, but I didn't work with it for long before I moved to Microsoft Azure Dev Tools.

I can't specify which of the functions are my favourite, because I think everything about it is great. The only challenge is that it is difficult to navigate if you don't have any prior knowledge of the software. However, if you have knowledge, you can navigate around it and know what each tool within the software is used for. I preferred JIRA Service Management before we adopted Azure because I had already started getting familiar with it.

I think it's well organized. If the project manager knows how to set it up, it can be set it up in a way to suit what we want. The only issues we observed are network related, for example, when we try to log into the system or open up the software. Other than that, I don't think there is any other thing I can say that is wrong with the software. The developers did a very good job of knowing what the users wanted. The product is not lacking anything that a QA will want to use because it's not a major testing tool for QA. However, if they can develop their own JIRA development tool, that will be cool, similar to how we have Chrome development tool and Azure. I think it will be good if that can be incorporated into JIRA Service Management.

We have been using this solution for about five months. First, we used the latest cloud-based version where we navigate to the website and key in our community, company name, projects and group. We can then go directly to our workspace, where we see everything we do.

Most software work with the internet. Some of them, especially those that are cloud-based, are also linked with work servers, but there is no guarantee that they are 100% stable. If the network is not stable, then it affects the software. For example, if you open the web browser and type the URL and get a server error, it's usually a network issue. If the network is stable, the platform will work fine, but if it's not stable, you're going to expect some hiccups in the work site.

The scalability depends on the organizations using JIRA Service Management. If it's fitting for what they are using it for, then it's okay. If it's not, they have every right to change it and use something else. We decided to move away from JIRA Service Management to Azure because we felt it wasn't properly organized. I found working with JIRA Service Management interesting because I could look at the extractor and see which task is in development, or emerging, the status of every task and to who it was assigned.

Our company has currently switched from using JIRA Service Management to Azure.

I don't have any details of the initial setup process. 

I don't know anything about the licensing costs. I wasn't with the company when it was installed, and I only used it as a tool for my work. Hence, I cannot comment on pricing.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten, as it does not lack anything. My advice to users is that JIRA Service Management is a good project management tool to handle projects respectively and efficiently. The product is second to none if they know how to use it. Additionally, JIRA Service Management has a learning section where you can go and learn how to use the software. New users to the platform can also capitalize on a cursor feature that describes how to use a particular tool once you hover over it. For those who developed the software, I want to give them a thumbs up as they did a very good job. If there is anything they feel they can add to make it more user-friendly, they should ensure that the users can have access to whatever they want to upgrade on the software and let it be that the users can use that tool effectively. However, the tool could be improved by including more explanations to assist users who are new to the platform. I would describe JIRA Service Management as being 75% user-friendly, but it would be great if it could be 90% user-friendly.