JIRA Service Management Reviews

I mainly use JSM to pick solutions for customers, for email to case, and for self-service tickets.

JSM's best feature is the integration with other Jira products.

JSM's ability to handle large volumes of emails isn't great. Its SLA management is also very primitive and should be made more robust. In the next release, JSM should include the ability to send single emails to large enterprise organizations rather than each individual receiving a separate message. 

I've been using JIRA Service Management (JSM) for three years.

The cloud version is stable.

JSM's cloud version is scalable, but you need to be cautious with the on-prem version since you will be onboarding thousands of additional customers to support.

I previously used Salesforce Service Cloud and BCM software.

The initial setup is straightforward, but the software doesn't give any help, so you have to use third-party tools like script and SLA management tools.

JSM's pricing is one of the best, starting at around $10 per user, per month, with volume discounts available.

I advise anybody looking into JSM to ensure they get their workflows right and plan strategically about how they want to integrate their standard product with JSM. They should also stay away from the on-prem version. I would give JSM a rating of seven 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.

Here in Korea, there's high demand for eCommerce solutions or platforms. You'll see fifty percent of products on eCommerce platforms or follow an eCommerce model. Some companies even own eCommerce platforms. For example, a clothing company wants to sell products online and uses online services. Usually, companies want to build platforms, so my company goes ahead and helps build the platforms, and Jira Service Management helps in the process.

Another use case relates to training solutions, especially with the COVID-19 pandemic. A company wants a training platform for its employees. For example, a rental company with thirty thousand service staff or installers must train employees frequently or regularly, so my company does the application development for online training solutions.

My company also uses Jira Service Management in platform-enhancing projects. For example, a company wants to enhance CRM or ERP, manage or improve hiring, do cost management, etc.

Jira Service Management is a generic solution that helps in project management and application development projects.

Jira Service Management has three features I found valuable. First, it has a workflow feature that you can configure for your specific requirements. For example, you can configure your workflows for service management, especially if you want to utilize it for a service desk. This is beneficial if your company provides services to customers where customers or users have questions, complaints, or troubleshooting requests. Through Jira Service Management, you can receive service requests and handle the requests within your organization or company as long as you configure and apply service management processes through the solution. This would still depend on your company's process. It's different from one company to another.

Another feature of Jira Service Management I like is that it lets you efficiently manage service requests with team members or employees. Team members can access and handle designated service requests, add answers, check the history, etc.

Jira Service Management also has a dashboard that helps you handle service requests well. Dashboards provide monitoring information, such as the number of service requests, which customers need information on, who's handling the service request, what's the status, and the priority levels of the requests. You can get service request statistics on the dashboard.

I also like that Jira Service Management has several feature sets you can configure. You can add columns and configure screens containing the information you want, such as customer name, environment, etc. The solution is flexible, which I also find valuable.

What's missing in Jira Service Management is the user screen. You'll find it very weird if you've never used the solution before. You won't instantly understand how to use it. It's not too difficult to grasp, but first-time users would think that Jira Service Management is a weird solution. The user-friendliness of its interface needs improvement.

There's a pro and a con to adding user screens because some people might lose product visibility if a user screen is added, but I want Jira to develop a way to add user screens to Jira Service Management.

I started using Jira Service Management in 2014. I've been using it for eight years now.

Stability-wise, Jira Service Management is a nine out of ten because it's been stable for eight years.

Jira Service Management is very scalable, so I'd rate its scalability as nine out of ten.

My rating for Jira Service Management technical support is eight out of ten.

Positive

I find the initial setup for Jira Service Management very convenient. Ten minutes is enough for me to set it up. In terms of users becoming familiar with the solution, it would take one week. The total time to deploy Jira Service Management is one to two weeks; setup-wise, it's eight out of ten.

How you set up and deploy Jira Service Management depends on your needs. Sometimes you need to set the solution up with a CI/CD pipeline to streamline it. You must gather your requirements and look into your project scope, particularly application feature sets and development list. Once you have the requirements, you can drill down into the development list, break down the sub-functional list, and then identify the software design.

From the software design perspective, you need to break it down into functionalities, and once you have your functionality list, you can assign that to developers and designers. The designers and developers can work via scrum or sprint. My company practices both. People will then develop the software based on the application functionality list and perform some tests.

The QA department will then do an API test and test the user interface and feature sets. Staging, verifying, and validating requirements will also occur before the software is deployed into a production environment.

As Jira Service Management lets you enjoy efficiency and more visibility compared to other solutions, you can consequently save money, so there's ROI from the solution. Still, at first, there were some deductions.

ROI-wise, it's a seven out of ten.

Jira Service Management has affordable license fees. It's $12 a month per person. If you need support, you need to email Atlassian. Atlassian doesn't provide premium-level support that requires additional payment. My company doesn't need it anyway.

I'm a heavy Jira and Confluence user and have a lot of information on system integration projects. My company used ALM solutions ten years back, but not now. I'm looking for other solutions that provide quick delivery for digital transformation projects, as that's what companies search for nowadays.

Confluence, like Jira Service Management, is from Atlassian. Atlassian provides several solutions, such as service management and application lifecycle management (ALM) solutions.

I use several solutions, such as Jira Service Management, Jira Work Management, Confluence, Bitbucket, and Trello.

My company uses Jira Service Management heavily for sixty projects.

My company is a service integration company, so for some customers, Jira Service Management is deployed on the cloud, while for some, it's deployed on-premises. My company builds CI/CD pipelines for customers with data centers. My company utilizes Jira Service Management heavily in both AWS and Azure. The solution is deployed on Azure or AWS, depending on the customer's requirement.

Three people train users on the software. It's not difficult to set up Jira Service Management. The difficulty occurs when users have no familiarity with managing the solution. A small software development team sometimes doesn't want to use Jira Service Management.

When the solution is up, it doesn't require maintenance. If it's just a feature upgrade, it doesn't need maintenance. However, sometimes, my company needs maintenance and support because the project is continuously evolving, so there's a need to make some changes. For example, you need to change your workflow or the dashboard. Atlassian maintains the software. It's Atlassian's responsibility. My company has three engineers for ALM maintenance, rather than Jira Service Management maintenance. The three engineers support customers.

My rating for Jira Service Management is nine out of ten.

My company is a Jira customer.

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.

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.

One of the valuable features is that an automatic response or action can be taken on tickets. We can have certain responses for tickets that contain keywords or are logged and tagged with certain labels.

The other thing is that the solution is starting to get out of just Service Management, and it's providing a Service Management project for other parts of our business. You've got the IT part and you've also got the business support, so people can use it for services like purchase orders, applications for shipping, and other things that are used across the business. That's the other useful part, that you're able to adapt it for other things.

Because it's a cloud platform, and because it's based on people subscribing to a platform, you end up with iterative improvements. I know a lot of users have said that they want a feature, for example, that was on the on-prem version of Jira or that the cloud version is missing, and the biggest issue, and this applies to a lot of cloud or SaaS platforms, is that the vendor can't deliver or do that. They're either unwilling or unable to give feature parity. The nature of a lot of SaaS solutions is that you can't always get the same thing.

The other thing is that you may have a time lag where, suddenly, you don't have a feature anymore, and you have to log an improvement request and then wait for various other factors. Eventually, it might get progressed or it might get stopped. Probably the biggest downside is that you are locked into that model and you have to accept what you signed up for. You have some capacity to extend it with add-ins and things, but for the base feature set, you will always be at the mercy of the vendor.

A lot of the integrations within the marketplace for Jira are all third parties, so a lot of the additional solutions that plug into other platforms are not written by Atlassian and that usually incurs an additional cost. It may not be the model they want and it would stifle competition and external people being able to contribute, but it would be good to see Atlassian provide more native integrations out of the box. I'm not against paying for integration if it's going to provide benefits, but it would be nice if Atlassian themselves were able to provide some things, at least at a basic level. I know third-party vendors can commit resources and probably have far more capability to deliver something that is feature-rich, but if you just want basic integration it would be nice to have it, rather than having to buy something when you may not need all of its functions.

I have been using the solution for probably between four to five years. Previously we used an on-premise installation of Jira, and then we moved to the hosted or Atlassian offering, where they host it in their own cloud. 

From where I sit, the cloud version is superior. Mainly this is due to not having to manage the upkeep of Jira, which was quite frankly a pain, but that's just the nature of Jira.

The solution is relatively stable. There was an incident not long ago where Jira was in the news because there was a small error made by somebody, and they ended up deleting a lot of customer environments and they didn't have any backups. I think that was a wake-up call for a lot of people. Otherwise, stability-wise, it's pretty good. They've got APIs and things for various other actions and we consume that and it seems to be pretty issue-free.

We have increased our license count and our consumption of services, not just with Service Management, but our entire Jira service consumption. We upgraded our subscription at least a couple of times over the last year and it's pretty simple, you literally say what you want to do. The other great thing is that you can trial it. You can say, "I want to initiate a trial of this particular level or subscription," and then you can trial it, piece it all out, and decide whether you're going to increase.

In terms of actual support staff, we have probably between 50 to 75 employees using this solution. The whole business includes between 600 to 650 people who could be using it to log requests.

I think the complexity of the setup depends on what you take with you. We migrated our existing Service Management project to this cloud version. If I was doing it, I wouldn't bother doing that. I would archive that data and start fresh, but it does have a lot of built-in onboarding features that were quite useful. We also have a partner who's a Jira-certified implementer, so they were very helpful with a lot of the issues that we had.

One other thing was getting the SCIM, or the provisioning of users, fixed. We use Azure ID, so it was important that that was done correctly, otherwise licensing would be a nightmare. We wanted to make sure that we weren't licensing people who were no longer active, and also that everyone who needed access, got it.

We didn't require an integrator, but we already had somebody who we were working with, not specifically for Service Management, but for a number of Jira initiatives. They were able to give us pointers. You don't have to have an integrator, but it was useful.

On a scale of one to five, where five is a good price and one is high, I would rate this solution as a three. It isn't cheap but it's not ridiculous.

I would rate this solution as a six out of ten. 

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. 

We use this solution for support for our projects.

I think one of the most valuable things is that it's all integrated. Between the Wiki and the product itself, whenever someone is typing in an error, it automatically pops up a solution.

Whenever we want to fix or improve something, Atlassian send us to the marketplace. We can vote for improvement, but it is really hard to get Atlassian to move forward with production because they have a huge marketplace. There are a lot of companies developing fixes or features, and you can pay for those features. I feel that Atlassian isn't really interested in fixing everything because if they did, the partners that are developing the fixes and features would not have a place in the market. 

An additional feature I would like to see is automation. JIRA offers the functionality of global automation in their highest plan, but it's at a higher price. Sometimes they release good new features, but they're always at a higher price so most of the features are only available for the highest plan. I would like to see new releases also being available to the lowest plan.

I have been working with this solution for four years. 

The solution is quite stable and we've had no problems with it. I would rate the stability as an eight out of ten. 

It is easy to scale, especially because we are working on SaaS, so it's not a problem for us. We have been putting a lot of new projects on JIRA Service Management and we've never had any issues. Approximately 200 employees use this solution at my company. 

I have opened tickets with the support team. Sometimes the answer is good, and sometimes you're commonplace behind a priority search, so it all depends on the technical representative that picks up the ticket. I would rate the technical support as a three out of five. 

Neutral

The initial setup was quite easy. 

On a scale of one to five, with one being really high and five being good, I would rate the price of this solution as a four. 

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. It's a good product.