JIRA Service Management Reviews

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.

I implement JIRA Service Management for customers. The solution is used for IT Service Management.

The most valuable features of JIRA Service Management are the service level agreement or management, and the ticketing system. Additionally, there are frequent updates that provide improvements.

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

JIRA Service Management is scalable.

As a consultant, I have used the support. Some of the support I have received has been good and other times it could improve.

I rate the support from JIRA Service Management a seven out of ten.

Neutral

The solution is the cloud which does not need any installation. However, we are doing implementations, and it is easy to use. For a data center, it needs installations. Data centers have a special set of load balancers, nodes, databases, et cetera. Cloud implementation is simpler than database implementation.

The price of the solution is becoming expensive and it should be reduced.

Most of the clients need to implement ITSM, which makes JIRA Service Management a crucial tool, especially if they are using JIRA software for the development team. There is integration between the two products, it's better to use JIRA Service Management when having to combine the two solutions.

The administration maintenance and daily tasks are easy but need special skills and training.

My advice to others is they need to be an expert to be able to administer it.

I rate JIRA Service Management a ten out of ten.

Our primary use case for the solution is the management of backlog and prioritizing tasks for the team. We deploy the solution on cloud.

The performance in cloud service management could be improved. For example, sometimes queries get stuck, and when you search for a specific thing, it freezes until you refresh the page. There is room for improvement.

We have been using the solution for a year and a half.

The solution is stable. Approximately 500 users utilize it in our organization.

We have not had experience with customer service and support.

We previously used Teamwork.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. The solution is good, but the performance in cloud service management could be improved.

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.

Our service desk is completely automated using Jira for everyone in the organization. If they have any issues with hardware, software, an application or login credential, they raise a ticket and then it goes to the service desk. We also use Jira to raise bugs and manage projects for clients. 

The dashboards in Jira have been the most useful feature. 

The customizations in Jira could be improved by being simplified. They are currently very complex.

We have been using this solution for 15 years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. There are no speed issues and we use it to support a large number of users. 

The initial setup of Jira is straightforward when done with an external system. We have recently integrated Jira with one of our applications which creates a ticket in that application and in Jira. This kind of integration caused some internal project monitoring challenges. 

This solution could be made to be more affordable.

This is pricey solution. Should we move to using all cloud solutions in our business, we may move to different tools that have multiple functionality versus having a solution for each area. This would be too pricey and we would need to replace Jira with a different solution that also offers other features. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We are using JIRA Service Management for many operations. Our organization is a call center and we use it for fixing phones, adding phones, fixing the CRM, faults or bugs on a website, bug-related reports, network issues, and VPN.

JIRA Service Management could improve the forms. When you complete the form for the ticket, for example, to have more information given to the team. If they needed this information, you can give it to them. They need to add additional information for a better understanding of the whole picture of the issue or problem.

In a future release, JIRA Service Management should add desktop notifications because at the moment, it's coming through emails. However, if they had desktop notifications, it would help a lot.

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

The stability of JIRA Service Management is good.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 800 people in my organization using this solution, which includes the technical teams and managers. 

I have used the support from JIRA Service Management.

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

The initial setup is not complex, but you need some training to be able to complete it.

I would advise others to have some training before they implement JIRA Service Management.

I rate JIRA Service Management a nine out of ten.

ITIL Service Management - Multi National Service environment 

Interoperability of all the modules;

A unified view of work

Dev and Ops that flow

JIRA Service Management feature request List.

The products functionally is expanding rapidly, hence there is a huge backlog of Jira product feature requests that are focused on the detail functionality.

There is not enough effort focused on solving the detail functionality of Jira.

I have used JIRA Service Management for approximately three years.

I have found JIRA Service Management to be stable.

JIRA Service Management is scalable.

The technical support from JIRA Service Management has been responsive.

I've previously worked with a couple of similar solutions, such as ServiceDesk, HP OpenView, and Zendesk.

We have a complex environment, but the JIRA Service Management was quite simple to implement.

I price of JIRA Service Management is reasonable.

I would advise others that this solution is similar to any other service management solution. There's nothing out of the box, there is always a level of development that has to happen for it to work well.

I rate JIRA Service Management an eight out of ten.

We implement this solution for service management, e.g. for internal requests. If a user has a new hardware or a new internal requirement, that user will create a ticket that will be assigned to a department and correspond to our people, and then they try to swap support.

I find the user interface and support for JIRA Service Management good.

This solution also improved our IT request requirements, compared to when we were using email, e.g. it's difficult to track requests via email. With JIRA Service Management, tracking requests is better, because users contact us through tickets, and we are also able to ask for feedback from the users more easily, e.g. if our service was good, or if they have any issues with the solution.

What could be improved in this solution is its reporting function, particularly the filters. There are reports we can implement on the JIRA Service Management portal for the client we create the service for, but the report is not very good for the client. The client wants more filters on the portal, but in this case, we need to go to the portfolio to get the custom report for the client.

I've used JIRA Service Management for one year.

The support for this solution is good.

We're using the latest version of JIRA Service Management.

My rating for JIRA Service Management is eight out of ten.

We are using Service Management for the ticketing for our IT Help Desk. We are a government organization and I'm a senior manager.

We went with this product because the customer portal allows users to register tickets themselves.

Since we've moved to the cloud we've seen some improvement in foreign languages. What is lacking is the communication around these changes because we come across them almost by chance, and not because of any notification we've received. 

We've been using this solution for six months. 

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is scalable. We have currently deployed it to about 35 agents and it will be deployed to around 1200 customers. All of them deal with creating and resolving tickets.

I have no complaints with customer support. We contacted them a couple of times and even though the problem was at our end, they helped to resolve it satisfactorily. 

The initial setup was quite straightforward. We used two in-house people and one very helpful external consultant. We had about 15 half-day workshops with the consultant over a six-month period. We took our time and didn't work continuously on the implementation. 

Licensing costs are standard and can be seen on the Atlassian website. It's not an expensive solution. 

I would recommend that when deploying use an external consultant who has already used the product before. It makes things easier because they'll know what to do and, more importantly, what not to do. 

It's an ideal solution and I rate it 10 out of 10.