JIRA Service Management Reviews

Our primary use case is for customer service and customer requests. We also use it to set SLAs and as a general help desk. We are customers of Jira.

The solution has improved company functioning by providing more transparency, in my opinion. Our business is already working out of JIRA, so it connected directly with the platform rather than requiring us to move between several different platforms.

The reporting is a great feature. I also like being able to create customized forms which is extremely helpful.

If you raise a ticket with Jira, the portal doesn't enable any capability to see your other JIRA tickets, only the parts that are in the plugin for the service management. That's not a great experience because we have project teams that work out of their own Jira backlogs, so unless it's a link to a ticket in the JSM, there's no visibility for the customer in one single location.

I've been using this solution for two years. 

We haven't had any issues with performance, other than issues related to being on-prem. It's a stable solution.

The biggest issue is not being able to display linked issues and that makes scalability painful as far as the customer experience goes, and weighs down the system with more tickets. In terms of expanding, it's fairly straightforward. We have over 5,000 users in various roles including managers, developers, HR - it's across the board. In terms of maintenance, we have the main administrator and then a couple of guys that help out.

We transitioned from Salesforce to Jira Service Management mainly because a lot of our teams were already working out of Jira for their own project tracking. It just allowed us to bring everything together rather than working in different systems.

The initial setup was fairly straightforward and was carried out by an in-house team.

I would suggest looking into your current layout and requirements, evaluating them and then figuring out the best option in terms of how you want things categorized and broken down from both a customer perspective and a backend perspective before you try to build it out.

Despite the few downfalls, its cost is still very good compared to other holistic systems. A big reason for getting the switch approved was that the cost was substantially lower than other solutions. I can't speak for the cloud experience, I'm sure it's a little easier than running on-prem, which is very administrator heavy when you want to do a lot of automation or post functions. It's important to be prepared for that. Depending on how your organization is set up, you're likely to need your admin to do those things.

I rate the solution seven out of 10. 

We are using it for IT service management and business process management. We are using it for the help desk to handle all internal requests. We have its latest version.

Customizations are most valuable. The customization of workflows is the main power of the Atlassian tools in general. 

Functionality-wise, it is a great tool, and I have no problems with it. In terms of ease of use, ease of setup, and support, you can't go wrong with Atlassian tools.

Its UI is a bit overwhelming for new users. That has been the problem with Jira for a long time. If they could put some fields that we could use to simplify the UI, it would be good.

Transitioning from the server to the cloud has a learning curve. The pain point is again related to UI and not knowing where to look.

There should be an easier way to connect to an external database with special custom fields. It has been a pain point for me for such a long time. There are processes to do it, but I find them cumbersome.

I've been using Jira for over a decade.

In general, it is pretty stable, but sometimes, it has been sluggish. In a month, I have probably encountered this issue four times. It doesn't impede my work. It is just sluggish. 

Sometimes, I get kicked out of the system. That typically happens when we're starting with some configuration.

Scalability-wise, you can definitely scale your systems or integrate with other third parties. There are also plug-ins that you could use and evaluate. So, you do get the flexibility to install plugins. 

Before moving to the cloud, I could use plugins for more than 30 days, and I just had to give a request for additional months, but it is not working anymore in the cloud. It is probably because of the company that creates the plugins. 

We have 50 users. It doesn't require maintenance. We only maintain workflow changes, and the system runs on its own. Even upgrades are done by them. It is pretty easy as compared to the server version.

For the cloud, I would rate their support a nine out of 10. I don't have to worry about the system. I haven't experienced anything like that before transitioning to the cloud.

If I have to troubleshoot a problem, there is a lot of online documentation. I can also connect with the community. Sometimes, it is faster to Google than contacting their support.

It was straightforward. It happens at the click of a button. It is very easy as compared to setting up the server, which took a lot of skills. 

Setting it up just takes a few minutes. It is fast. If a workflow is complex, it would take a day. It depends on the complexity of the workflows, but generally, it is really fast.

I am using the free version, but my clients are paying for it. When they start, they evaluate it for 30 days, and after seeing the value, they move to its paid version.

I didn't evaluate other options. It is my favorite tool, but I am aware of ServiceNow and other ones. If you have Jira, you might as well get their whole ecosystem. If you're in development, you will get Bitbucket and Confluence as well for documentation. For Service Management, there is Jira Service Desk. I usually use their whole package. If there are integration problems, only then we would evaluate other solutions, but we could definitely connect with Jira by API. Atlassian products are very good. We always had Atlassian tools.

I am an evangelist of Atlassian tools, so I usually engage with my clients in using them. Everybody is into digital transformation, and we have been engaging with clients, and we're promoting Atlassian for their digital transformation. One thing that I always tell my clients is that they should have a single source of tools. Atlassian is always at the top of my list with Jira, Service Desk, and Confluence. These are my top three products of Atlassian that I usually give them. 

Based on my experience, you should go for the full Atlassian ecosystem if you are looking for IT service management and workflow management for your businesses. If you are into development, Jira is definitely one of the best tools out there. You can pretty much use the whole suite. Scalability-wise, you can easily scale your systems or integrate with other third parties. The only caveat is that you need to have someone who is actually an expert in Atlassian tools for you to be able to maximize it. It is very powerful if you know how to maximize it.

In the context of business process and workflow management, it would be impossible to implement good process management or workflow management in Jira if you haven't defined one. It is important to define the processes and then train people. If you don't train your staff using Atlassian Suite, you're not maximizing your investment.

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

The solution is mainly used for testing the product. It's for managing the team and the BI team among others.

The service management aspect of the solution is excellent.

The solution has good cloning capabilities. Our team was happy with it.

The initial setup is easy and straightforward. 

Overall, it's the best option on the market, after looking at other products.

The solution needs to be integrated better with Office X5. We use that often and need Jira to be able to effectively communicate it.

Right now, my judgment of the solution is based on their trial version. I haven't likely experienced the full functionality and features that are already there. That's why I cannot give you the highest measurement for performance. A paid version may have much more to offer clients.

I haven't experienced asset management within the product. In the IT field, assets are the biggest issue for the life cycle of any service within IT. I didn't see this part, and I'm not sure if that functionality is already presented within Jira. I saw it in other products, however, in Jira I didn't find it. Maybe it comes at an extra cost, and this is in a paid version.

I've used the solution for about four months or so.

I don't have experience with stability. My team would know more than I do.

I'm planning to expand and change the license type, from the free one and to the professional one, in order to get more functionality and features. Our target is to do so in the coming year. Our plan is to increase usage. 

For the time being, we only have a limited number of people in the office using the solution. There are maybe only seven or eight of us on it right now. 

We haven't needed to contact technical support yet. So far, everything has been very straightforward and we haven't needed help.

The initial setup is not complex or difficult. It's straightforward. 

I handled the initial setup myself, in-house. I did not need the help of a consultant or integrator.

Right now, I am using the free version of the solution.

I'm comparing different desk and service management platforms. Jira is one of the top selected products, especially for the project management cycle. Jira was the best. I've tested many options, and many of them are well-known brands. 

I'm just a customer.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been happy with the product so far. 

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

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.

The SLA, speed, the comments from the agents' side, and the dashboard for agents are the most valuable features. 

From the customer side, it's not friendly used compared to other competitors, like ServiceNow or BMC. It's also not fully ITSM management if you compare it with ServiceNow or BMC. They have a full model of ITSM. In BMC they have TrueSight, they have Discovery, which helps IT to discover IT equipment with a serial number, with the specs, capacity of the server. It will give them a view of what's happening if you want to manage requests for change or incidents or planned maintenance. That is available in BMC. They can put a timeframe for maintenance, whenever you want to raise issues, it will tell you that there is client maintenance. And it prevents you from creating issues. This kind of automation is missing from Jira.

Maybe I could find it if I added add-ons or patch in add-ons. Jira cannot compete with what is developed now in ServiceNow and BMC. They are focusing on having a full set of ITSM and a full set of ITOM, which is needed to enhance a lot in Jira. 

There are improvements in every release. They don't look at competitors. They focus more on enhancing bugs or enhancing the features that they have, to fix the bugs that they have, to listen to the users' recommendations. The other competitors are looking to enhance, to change entire the platform to make it reliable, or to make it also near for the growth of the company expectation. The IT team is looking for more automation, more link with systems. How they can, for example, prevent issues from happening. 

We want people to not slow down with the tickets. We want people to have the issue solved automatically. I know that there are add-ons, but always does not fit or is not always in the proper way that we are looking for. 

I have been using this solution for seven years. 

People are looking for more stability and reliability in the system, which is improved in every release, which is good. It's always improving. I feel the difference from the day I moved to version seven and today. It's become faster and they don't have issues with the slowness anymore.

Their response is good. I don't open a lot of tickets with Atlassian. I have a contract with my vendor, who is a partner of Atlassian. My contract with him is not to solve issues, it's more to have more help in scripting or in developing a small script to help me do something which cannot be done directly from Jira. Within the full year, maybe one ticket or two tickets are raised with Atlassian. 

I did the migration from version five to seven. I have a good idea about the flows and the workflow, the customization inside the scheme, and things. Within three or four months, we migrated everything to the new platform. The beauty of Jira, because it's simple, even the workflow is easy to understand. 

It's easy to use.

Compared with other vendors, pricing is okay. But they increase the price every year which gets me in trouble with finance. I have to convince them why I have to pay these extra amounts which are supposed to stay the same. 

I know it's not linked to Atlassian always, because also the other partner was giving us the price directly. 

I would rate Jira an eight out of ten. 

I would like for them to have automation to change the portal, it's still limited. It's not user-friendly compared with other vendors. 

I recommend would, of course, recommend Jira. It depends on the users. When we started, it was good for us but now that the company is growing and we have a lot of applications, a lot of servers, a lot of complexity, and a lot of links between application services, it's not perfect for us. Our infrastructure has also become huge. We have cloud, hybrid, and on-prem. Sometimes we face an issue, but we spend hours understanding where exactly. It can be small things, but no only can understand where exactly. So that's why we are looking for something that can help with this, to prevent us from raising issues, and to find a solution.

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. 

We use JIRA Service for our help desk, our procurement processes, and for our financial approvals. We also use it for our technical team collaboration with lines. I'm a program architect.

I think it's very easy to develop any process inside Jira Service Management, you can build any software with it. It's simple to use and user-friendly. It's based on a technical system, but you can move any process into JIRA Service Manager very easily. Its workflow design is very simple and that's why people prefer this product. I think it's currently the best solution on the market.

Service Management currently lacks an asset management module that can make deployment more difficult. We recently had to purchase SolarWinds Asset Management to cover that aspect.

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

The solution is stable. 

We have around 700 users so the solution is scalable.

The customer support could be improved. 

We used two or three of our developers for the initial setup and they also manage the server. It's not a large team.

Licensing costs are on the expensive side. 

The solution is suitable for mid-sized or enterprise companies and I rate it 10 out of 10. 

The most valuable features are the flexibility of defining your own workflows and automation around the workflows, and the integration with the gate or any repository.

The main issue with this solution is there's no limited subscription available for plugins we only use for a few people. If we only have a team of twenty using a plugin, we still have to purchase a subscription for the whole 200 users.

I've been using this solution for a year and a half.

We're using the cloud version, which I think is more stable than the on-prem.

JIRA Service Management is scalable, but there are some issues that cloud instances can't be linked with server-based instances.

JIRA's technical support is good and responsive.

The initial setup for the cloud instance was very straightforward.

If you're not bound to the Microsoft platform, I would say you must go for JIRA as it's more flexible than the Microsoft equivalent. I'd give JIRA a rating of seven out of ten.