JIRA Service Management Reviews

My clients use Service Management for general ITSM ticketing. They typically use Jira internally for providing help desk services to other departments, but one of my customers uses it for his customers, like external websites, etc.

Service Management is great if you're an Atlassian shop already using JIRA for the development team and you want another tool for help desk ticketing. When it's all under the same umbrella, I can easily take a ticket from the help desk and move it to the development team. You can't beat that integration between two products. 

Service Management is highly customizable, but I think it might be too customizable. If a company isn't aware of the best practices, it can easily mess something up. For example, you might try automating something that Jira doesn't support, and it could interfere with the product's out-of-the-box capabilities. 

Asset management should be built into Service Management. Typically, companies need both. You have to buy Atlassian's asset management solution separately. It could either be offered as a bundle or some lighter version of asset management could be included with Service Management. 

I have been using Jira Service Management for a year or so.

I have confidence in Service Management. 

Service Management is scalable. 

I rate Atlassian support two out of 10. It takes a lot of time to reach them and get ahold of someone who understands my problem enough to provide a solution. Also, I live in Israel, so my work week is Sunday through Thursday, but I can only contact them from Monday to Wednesday.

Negative

I've worked with ServiceNow. Comparatively, Jira provides a good solution at a reasonable price, and it's quicker to implement inside a company. ServiceNow's implementation is complex. I'm more comfortable with Jira. 

I rate Service Management six out of 10 for ease of setup. At first, setting up Service Management seems incredibly easy. You log into the website and access the site, but nothing comes from the backend because you don't have anything set up for the company. You need to set up the fields, workflows, etc. Companies expect to be able to do it fast after buying the license, but it's not that quick. It typically takes five days to set it up. It isn't a plug-and-play solution.

I rate Service Management four out of 10 for affordability. The price could be better, especially for companies using more than one Atlassian product. It's suitable for SMBs that can afford it. I don't think there's another tool that's both better and cheaper. All help desk tools are relatively expensive.

You also need to consider the overall work we need to do on the tool. The five days of work needed for deployment isn't much, but it requires ongoing maintenance over time.

I rate Jira Service Management seven out of 10. If you plan to implement Service Management, you need to be aware that you can do whatever you want with it, but you might not know the long-term effects. If you do too much automation, it could have unforeseen consequences in the long run. You need to be highly specific about your needs from the start, so you can correctly build the tool's architecture.

We use this solution for ITSM solutions including for our help and service desk for user support ticketing and incidents. There are several use cases for this solution and its usage depends on the kind of the company.

The customer portal with connection with our knowledge base has been most valuable. The queues to classify requests and SLIs to measure the quality of the service response and resolution time have also been great. It offers flexibility to configure workflows.

The product could improve its asset management.

I have been using this solution for seven years. 

It is a stable solution. You can deploy it with high availability in a cluster.

This is a scalable solution. You can add clusters or servers if you need on-premise solution or for a cloud solution.

I would rate the technical support for this solution a four out of five. 

The installation is simple but you need to set up a PDF to initiate the configuration and adapt to the customer or user needs. It's very flexible, but you need to complete the configuration work.

The cloud version or AS version takes minutes or hours to deploy. For on-premise version, you need between five to 20 days. It depends on the initial needs of the customer. Compared with other solutions like ServiceNow or EasyVista, this is a solution that can be deployed in less time.

It depends on the number of users but it starts at $20 per month per user. I would rate them a three out of five for pricing. Asset management has an extra cost. The relation between price, functionality and usability is good.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

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. 

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. 

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.

One use case is to communicate with customers. We have a lot of customers who are facing issues with products and they can raise the request from the customer portals. Internally, we'll also use it for the IT team and the Jira team. If any configuration changes or any new projects need to be created, or any configurations to be implemented, et cetera, we have a service management project and they will raise their tickets.

The SLAs are great. With SLAs, we can try them out. If you are providing solutions or responding to customers, it's great. 

The flow of the reports is good. I don't see any features or anything that is lacking. Everything is good on the JIRA Service Management, in terms of what they have provided.

It's easy to set up.

We have a lot of add-ons, however, instead of the add-ons, for example, cloning could be better. 

When we do a clone of a particular issue, it needs to ask certain things like system fields at least, to copy them or not. One thing which I did not like, is whenever we are moving a request from one project to another project, if, during that time, for example, a resolution has been fixed and now I am moving that issue to a particular work in progress status, during that time the resolution needs to be clear. JIRA applications are not providing the information. It is not clearing it in the backend.

If we are moving from one issue to another, we are waiting for support to resolve them. During that time window, a resolution is mandatory and it is not prompting us to resolve anything. Due to this, sometimes the reports might not get properly recorded.

I've been using the solution for the last four years. 

Recently, in the Jira cloud, we have had an issue. Users are not able to log in and some of the customer data has also been lost. Overall, it's stable, about 99% stable.

Currently, the number of users on Jira Service Management is around 300 plus users - maybe as many as 400. In terms of Jira software, we have 1400 using it.

It's a scalable product.

We do have plans to increase the licensing in the future.

Technical support has been helpful. We are satisfied with the level of service. 

The implementation is straightforward.

I wrote the automation. I used automation for the Jira app, and in the backend, in the workflows. I used a validator with the script. Based on that, I pulled some conditions. It was easy.

I'm not aware of the exact pricing. It's my understanding that, compared to Service Management, the price is a little higher, however, the Jira software price is okay. It's a good price.

I'm just an end-user.

We are on the cloud, and therefore using the latest version. They release new versions and fixes automatically and we can take advantage of them right away. 

Others need to be aware of how we need to use service management first. They need to know the queues and the SLAs. They need to understand the configurations also. 

I'd rate the solution nine 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.