JIRA Service Management Reviews

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.

We are only using JIRA Service Management for a limited amount of use cases.

The most valuable feature of JIRA Service Management is a plugin we are using for the front end for simple user forms.

I have been using JIRA Service Management for approximately two years.

For the environment, we are using JIRA Service Management for it is stable.

JIRA Service Management is able to scale to a reasonable size. Since it is hosted in the cloud there are not any scalability issues.

We have approximately 500 to 1,000 users using this solution.

We are using the premier support from JIRA Service Management.

I rate the premier support from JIRA Service Management a five out of five.

I rate the standard support from JIRA Service Management a three out of five.

Neutral

The initial setup of JIRA Service Management can be complex for new users. There is a lot of configuration.

We have a two or three-member team that does the maintenance for JIRA Service Management.

The price of JIRA Service Management could be reduced.

We did not evaluate other solutions prior to using JIRA Service Management. The company preferred this solution.

I rate JIRA Service Management an eight out of ten.

We use it to track software development projects.

We get software developed faster.

I like that it's easy to set up Sprint and put tasks and stories into Sprint. It is really easy to lay out the work that needs to be done.

I think that either a Gantt chart or a calendar view is something my management is used to seeing, and while they like the Sprint burndown charts, they would still like to see what is on the plan, and what is up and coming. I would like to see improvement in the ability to filter completed tasks.

I have been using JIRA Service Management for three years.

The stability is ok for our needs. There are times when there have been some flaky things, that I don't think we expected, but it's not crashing all the time.

It seems to scale just fine.

I haven't figured out how to find Jira's technical support. There are times when I would have been happy to have had Jira technical support and I could not figure out how to get ahold of them.

There were some pieces that were more difficult than I expected. This is another place to think of some improvement. Not regarding the installation instructions, but more guidance on the different ways to set up your project and different ways this tool can be used. Again, if I'm paying for the licensing of the tools, going out, and sending lots of people to large training courses, this becomes more expensive. I'm looking for the developers to give more guidance on directions on relating to the tool and the ways that the tool is useful. 

I would rate JIRA Service Management an eight out of ten.

In our bank, we use a partner company who develops software for us. They use Jira for the developer portion to track issues, or bugs, that need to be fixed on the software development life cycle. 

We have two teams, one is the development department which includes developers and business analysts who use Jira to track and develop issues within their own team and a third-party consultant. The other is the audit team who is using Jira to track their audit findings and follow-up.

Jira's issue tracking for different projects for the development side is quite useful.

With respect to our help desk, we have been considering switching from ManageEngine to Jira so that we can have a single consolidated system for all the development life cycles. Jira has different modules that can develop workflow for demand management and project management, but the solution is no out of the box and would require lots of customization. The cost of switching has prohibited us from moving ahead with Jira as a service desk solution.

I have been using Jira Service Management for almost 5 years.

Jira is quite stable.

We haven't used Jira on a large scale. Our work groups are a maximum of 20 people.

We currently are using ManageEngine for the service desk solution. This solution has been good but they do not have a consolidated system for the development life cycle. We would like to switch to Jira for this service solution as well but cost prohibits us from moving forward.

The initial setup is not complex. The deployment itself does not take much time, however the custom workflow does take longer. 

We completed the installation with the help of external consultants who are familiar with Jira.

Jira is becoming quite popular and is well supported. We find that when working with other companies on other projects, they are using Jira to track issues so it is beneficial for us to use the same solution.

Jira has lots of modules and integrations, however too many makes licensing difficult to understand upfront and becomes quite expensive to have a full solution.

I would rate Jira Service Management a 9 out of 10.

Most of the use cases were finding solutions to customer problems and SLA cases. We worked with customers on some cases like call centers and with some companies who would like to solve their customer's problems. We also worked with the banking industry and insurance industry.

I have worked at OBSS, which is one of the biggest software companies in Turkey. They were also one of the Atlassian Solution Partners in Turkey. I recently left that company.

Compared to other solutions, Jira Service Management is really reasonable regarding price and speed. Technical support from the Atlassian agents is great.

In the Turkish market, the biggest problem is that they are looking for a server type of solution, but when it comes to Jira Service Management, Atlassian is a remote type of license. There are just two different options, data center and cloud.

When I was working at that company, we started to work with Central Bank of Turkey. We also worked with the defense industry. The biggest complaint was about data privacy. If Atlassian opened a data center in Turkey, that would be a very good solution for these kinds of companies.

Some plugins could be implemented into Jira Service Management, like our plugin. We had our own plugin calculated each status and how much time the company spent in each status.

I have used Jira in the past 12 months. We were using the server type of license. I don't remember the exact version we used, but I have also used the cloud version of Jira Service Management, which was called Jira Service Desk in the past. I used it for more than three years.

The solution is stable.

There were three or four people working on maintenance, but their work was not only in Atlassian. They were working as system engineers. This is one of the responsibilities of maintaining Atlassian products and services.

The solution is scalable. The data center's most popular feature is being scalable.  The cloud is very fast, and setting it up is very easy. 

Our company had around 500 people, but after I left the company, it was around 700 or 800 people.

Technical support is good.

When we created a ticket on Atlassian, they were also working SLA services, L1, L2, L3, and L4. When we created a ticket, we were getting very good service from an agent. In some cases, we had talks with our channel manager, especially about the cost of licenses.

We previously used Confluence, Puppet, Bamboo, and HipChat, and then it was sold to Slack. We used Fisheye and Crucible as well. We were using most of the solutions regarding Atlassian. In my daily life, I have also used Trello.

I worked mostly as a business developer, but when I received feedback from our deployment staff, they said it was not difficult to deploy the solution. Cloud is very easy to use. You just can start to work with it.

The license we use is on a yearly basis. As a Solution Partner, we were using the free one and were using the free plugins. We were also giving our own plugins to the Atlassian Solution Partners for free. We don't pay anything to Atlassian.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10. 

Sometimes the beginning of the implementation and working with custom-built workflows was a little bit difficult for regular companies. At this step, I strongly advise that they work with an Atlassian Solution Partner.

Specific industries need specific solutions. Atlassian partners have a lot of experience, maybe in that specific country and in that specific company field.

We are using it for internal issues related to our ERP system. We are tracking these issues and, more importantly, linking them to development tasks. So, if we've written an extension and there is a bug, and somebody opens a help desk case with it, we can link it directly to a bug ticket in Jira. We then know when this bug is fixed.

We are cloud-based, so we are always on the latest version.

The biggest thing is integration. Instead of having to have requirements in Word and then issues tracked somewhere and development tracked somewhere, everything is now in Atlassian. So, we've got requirements linked to development cases and the help desk tickets linked to development cases and tests.

The links between the help desk and Jira issues and between Confluence and Jira issues are most valuable. I can write requirements in Confluence and link them to user stories in Jira and test cases. I can see my test coverage and all that kind of stuff. The integration between these three is very useful. 

It is pretty customizable, and it integrates well. There are a lot of add-ins and a lot of connectors to third-party products. In my last company, we used Test Royal for managing all the tests, and it integrated perfectly with that. For any issue or bug, we could see what tests have been run and the complete history of the tests.

The way it handles subtasks can be improved. We would really like the ability to have different types of subtasks. If we have a user story for a feature, we would like to have a subtask for documentation, a subtask for requirements, a subtask for development, and a subtask for testing. Right now, we just make four subtasks, but there is no way to specify their type, so we have to add a custom field to specify what type of work is this. It just means you've got to look at more data. 

For logging time or time tracking, we would like to have something using which we can define the work type we're doing. We would like to log whether we're working on a bug, a new development, scope change, or rework. We've got a user story for which we do the dev, and then we have to do more dev. It is the same story, but some of it could have been a scope change, and some of it could be a rework because we either screwed up the first time or missed something obvious. Currently, we have to have a custom field and track that separately. It would be nice to have some kind of work type for logging time.

I used it in my previous company for about three years, and we literally just started with it the last week here.

Its stability is very good. So far, I've got only one issue in Confluence. When I'm at a table and I tab to a new cell, for some reason, it changes the text direction from right to left.

I never had any performance concerns. Currently, there are two of us who are using this solution, and we are developers. Ultimately, there will probably be ten of us. The other members are going to be the members of the ERP implementation team. They are subject matter experts in each department.

I and another developer are just moving all our stuff from Azure DevOps. He has never used it, so I'm kind of teaching him. We're configuring it how we want. Ultimately, I'd like the whole company to use it, but the big problem is the licensing.

I have interacted with their technical support. I would rate them a seven out of ten.

We were using Azure DevOps, which is Microsoft. It is totally free because we use Office 365 and their development tools. We used Azure DevOps for a while, but it kind of sucks when it comes to test cases, so we ended up moving over to Jira.

The biggest thing was that their boards are really bad. As compared to Jira's backlog and sprints, what Microsoft has got in Azure is just not very good. 

We also wanted to make a task of type Test, which it supports, but the problem is you can never delete it. You also can't have a hierarchy of two tasks that are of the same type, so I couldn't have two issues that were both a user story and put them in a hierarchy. It will let you do it, but it gives you a warning, and then it doesn't show up at certain places. 

We also wanted to put our artifacts somewhere. Azure DevOps doesn't support artifacts. We are on the Microsoft ERP system, and we can't upload an executable because it is not a supported artifact type. On the Microsoft ERP system, when we write extensions, it makes executables that are .app files. Normally, when we compile a new application, we store the compiled version in some kind of artifact repository. Microsoft has a feature called artifacts, but it only supports specific things. It doesn't support .app files, even though it is a Microsoft product. So, we were not able to manage the artifacts. We can't do that in Jira either, so we'll probably end up using Nexus, but the fact that Microsoft has artifacts and they don't work was just really annoying.

For me, it was relatively straightforward because I implemented it at my last company. For a new user, it is pretty complicated. It involves setting up workflows screens and issues screens, and there are so many different schemes that are interrelated.

If you're happy with everything that comes out of the box and their standard workflows and project types, you can get it up and running really quick, but if you've got specific needs, you will spend a lot of time learning about all the configurations. I probably spent a total of eight hours this time, but I have spent hundreds of hours on it at my last job.

The investment is $10 a month now. If we're paying $10 per agent per month and even have more than three agents, it is easily worth it. It is worth its weight in gold in being able to link everything together and have everything in one place.

Right now, there are only two of us who are both agents on the help desk and developers. We might be on the free version because we're less than three agents or users. I'm looking at Zephyr tests, which have a $10 a month flat rate, so right now, it is $10 a month.

There are lots of add-ons. They do a free version, a standard version, and a premium version. In the last company, we started on $50 a month. By the time I left, we were paying $4,500 a month. That was mainly because we had 100 users on Confluence. I bought an add-on for Jira software for which we had 10 users, and that was $5 per user per month. It was costing me $500 a month, whereas it should only be $50 a month. I don't know if licensing fee has changed.

I'd like our whole company to use it, but the big problem is the licensing because the Confluence side is what is really useful, but if I add 30 users to Confluence and then buy an extension for Jira software, I've got to pay for 30 licenses, even though I've only got two users in Jira software. It is the one big disadvantage of cloud software. You always have to pay for the number of seats regardless of which product you are on. This will probably severely limit how many people would use it because I'm not going to start paying $10 per user per month for a Jira software add-on when there are only two people using it.

It is free to try, so make sure you try it. The single biggest thing to look at is the licensing cost, especially if you plan to use something like Confluence, which is something you would probably want to roll out throughout the company because it is just a Wiki. If I've got two software developers and I put an add-on, having to pay 100 licenses for that is just crazy. 

I would rate Jira Service Desk an eight out of ten.

We are using JIRA Service Management for change of management.

JIRA Service Management is a very user-friendly solution.

JIRA Service Management could include more AI features.

I have been using JIRA Service Management for one year.

JIRA Service Management is a very stable solution.

I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten for stability.

Around 50 users are using JIRA Service Management in our organization on a daily basis.

I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten for scalability.

I would recommend JIRA Service Management to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.

We are a services-based organization providing software services to our customers.

This product is great at providing end-to-end project management for creating dashboards, for test case management, bug defect management, and the like. The management aspect is a key valuable feature. 

I think test case management could be more efficient. It currently requires two plugins which makes it less effective. At the moment with Jira, there are various products not included in the license such as CI CD pipeline or Atlassian Bamboo. Even if you take a bundle, these products are considered separate. On the other hand, if you buy an enterprise version of Microsoft Azure DevOps, a competitor of Jira, it's a one-stop solution on a single platform. 

I've been using this solution for over 10 years.

The solution is stable. 

The scalability is good. 

We don't use the technical support very much. Jira provides good documentation. 

Jira's advantage is in the straightforward set up. It's very easy in comparison to other tools. Deployment generally takes two to three weeks before we can go live. We use a third party for our deployments. The infrastructure environments vary from client to client. The deployment requires testers, developers, a technical architect, as well as project and service managers. 

The cost of the product is not very expensive but if you need to buy other plugins such as Confluence, it costs extra. I would recommend choosing a bundle option, if Atlassian gives you that option with Jira Confluence.

We also deploy Microsoft Azure DevOps. The client generally decides which solution they want to go with. The added advantage with Microsoft is that it's a one-stop solution whereas Jira's benefit is that it offers a less expensive product. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10.