JIRA Service Management Reviews

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. 

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.

We use this solution to track the work of different team members and to ensure that project tasks get completed. They get assigned tickets relating to those project tasks and and a deadline by which they have to complete the tasks. As they make progress, they update each task in the Jira ticket and this keeps everyone in the loop about their progress.

We have an Agile environment and using Jira makes it easy to adhere to Agile best practices. 

It would be useful to be ale to link tickets across different gantt charts in Jira and Confluence.

I have been using this solution for two and a half years.

This is a stable solution. 

This solution is very scalable. We have tons of people across different companies using it. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

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.