SCSM Reviews

We have the product installed on-premise but we are starting to integrate some of the cloud functionality. We are a systems integrator so we deploy the solution for our clients. We're deploying it for some banks that are big companies. We're doing for some small companies that are growing to help them with their growth. It depends on the demand of the customer and whether the customer can pay the license that is attached to it. So if the customer can pay, we go on with the deployment.

Microsoft System Center Service Manager is a good product. It seems very easy. It's better than most of the other solutions. But if you look at some of the packaging that goes with other solutions, they have only just a few features. They cannot do what Microsoft can do. But because of their packaging and whatever they do, they seem to cover Microsoft in some areas.

For this product, they are supposed to have an integration that will work with other resources in Microsoft Azure and other cloud providers because everything is going towards Azure now. I see how people are moving from on-premise to the cloud. So that's the direction we are looking at. And as an integrator, we're supposed to tell them the importance of it and how they will migrate and move on. We would like the integration process to be more simplified. They would have to allow some open-source that is a good product to speak to them even to lead to the open-source product. If the open-source product wants to talk to Microsoft or Service Manager they should have an API to do it.

I've been using Microsoft System Center Service Manager for six years now.

Microsoft has been changing, and It's still changing. It's like its working on some future solution in the System Center. Integrating more features in the cloud. So it's starting to provide some of the solutions. Microsoft uses the System Center to manage all the applications in the cloud and people are still afraid that they may drop everything and make everybody go to the cloud.

Microsoft System Center Service Manager scales very easily. Compared to other solutions that work similarly, I find that it's very easy to deploy. The customization seems to be easy as well. But if that person did not know the primal asset office and IT solutions it is more difficult.

I contacted support when I did the integration in the cloud. That is the first time I contacted support. It seems that the support is at the same level I am. So many times I go to the website of Microsoft to get information. But sometimes the documentation cannot give me exactly what I need. This makes me frustrated because I don't have time to call. They need to improve their support. When you cannot support the company that has your solution people will start to jump to another company that has a similar solution where somebody can support them if they have a problem. Bad support drives away in the business.

The initial setup is very nice. But after 2012 they changed the pattern of the solution because they are integrating it with the cloud. It takes more time to make a change. Because it's as if to say the change occurs every two years. I'm talking about people. People that manage it. I teach them about every two years to do it. When I started with it, I went for training, after the training, it was easy for me. So I cannot say that it's something somebody cannot easily learn from scratch from different services. Because all the material is online even video training is there. It is pretty easy to set up if you have the right training. It took me five days to set up. This included integrating WSCS with ACCM.

The difference between them is the integration. Because Microsoft can do a seamless integration to all the solutions. But when you are dealing with a third party you have to look for a problem, do the customization before you start allowing it to speak to the solution. So that is what is different between them but some of them are okay. Then some of them can be easily integrated some experience for somebody to arrive at a good answer.

Others that need this product that want to implement this product need to know what they need and be knowledgable about it. The problem we're having with the customer is they don't know what they need. After sitting with them we analyze and see what they need. They may not even require a lot of features in that solution which seems to be easy for us but when that customer is knowledgable even if we deploy the whole portions of the solution that person will not be surprised if something is not achieved. So I advise customers to know exactly what they need in each System Center Service Manager. 

I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

We are a system integrator and this is one of the solutions that we provide to our customers.

I have used 2012, 2015, and 2019 versions of this solution and have seen all of the different features. I am quite sure that I can do almost anything that is available in the suite, but I primarily generate customized reports.

SCSM is easy to learn because all of the material, including training videos, can be found online. When I went for training on this solution, I found it easy to learn.

SCSM integrates well with other Microsoft solutions.

Better integration with other services in Azure is needed because everything is moving from on-premises to the cloud, and as an integrator, we have to help our clients with the migration. I would also like to see integration with open-source solutions allowed. In general, we would like to have the integration process made simpler.

Technical support can be improved.

I am been using Microsoft System Center Service Manager for six years.

With respect to stability, it depends on whether the solution is deployed on-premises or in the cloud. Microsoft is dropping some of the other solutions, like SCOM. This has some people worried that Microsoft will drop all of the on-premises solutions and force them to go to the cloud. This would be a big problem for some people.

Scaling SCSM is very easy. When I looked at different solutions that work similarly, I realized that SCSM is comparably easy to deploy.

Our customers are varied in size and SCSM is suitable for companies of all sizes. We have implemented this solution for banks and big companies, as well as for small and growing companies. We will go on with the deployment if the customer has sufficient demand and they can pay the licensing fees.

The first time that I contacted technical support is when I was integrating with InTune, in a cloud-based deployment. I have found that the level of support is the same that I can do for myself, so many times, I visit the site to get information. Because support cannot always give me what I need, I often do not have time to call them. When I search through the site, I get the information I need.

The main difference between SCSM and similar solutions is integration. Microsoft can seamlessly integrate with all of the other solutions. There are some products that also integrate well, but it requires somebody with experience to implement it.

For anybody who has the training, this is an easy solution to set up.

When I first deployed this solution, it took me about five days. The reason it took this length of time is that I was integrating with WSUS, and it is a separate server so there are a lot of patches that need to be done.

In other cases, the initial setup is more straightforward.

We implement this solution for our clients.

Some customers have integrated this solution with InTune to manage the web part of it.

The initial concept of SCSM was very nice, but after the 2012 version, they have been changing it and integrating it with the cloud. Major changes have been happening about every two years. As a system integrator, we are liaising with them to discuss ideas about what customers want and in what direction they are moving.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is to be sure about what it is they need and what problem they are trying to solve. Sometimes when we sit with a customer and analyze what they need, we find that they do not require a lot of the features that are available. However, even when the whole solution is deployed, the customer may be unsatisfied if the intended goal is not achieved. This is why I advise customers to know exactly what it is they would like to do.

System Center Service Manager is a good product, and it is very easy to use. If Microsoft packaged this solution in a better way then people would appreciate it more.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for incident management.

The solution is quite easy to integrate with other Microsoft products.

It's not too hard to compile stuff but it is hard to manage the solution. Even the design itself makes it difficult for management. 

In the next release of the solution, they should include Enterprise Service Management.

I can speak only for how well it works for small businesses, but it's not fully compliant with the ISO. It's okay for the on-premises version. I don't know about the newest version for 2019.

I don't have any experience dealing with technical support.

The initial setup isn't too difficult. It's moderate in terms of difficulty. It takes a bit of work to personalize it for our purposes.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

Right now, we aren't really that happy with the solution and are considering switching to ServiceNow.

In terms of advice I'd give to others considering implementing the solution, I'd suggest that they pay attention to their service catalogs.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

We primarily use the solution to log calls and also for change and patch management.

The call logging is the solution's most valuable feature. It's very easy to use.

The solution isn't too resource-intensive.

The patch management aspect of the solution should be improved. It's quite complicated and not user-friendly. If your systems are not patched properly, you are unable to pull reports.

They should make it easy to use and to make it possible for users to log calls on the portal. It needs to be web-based. 

The solution is stable.

I've never tested the scalability of the solution. We only have about 10 to 20 users on it right now. We don't have plans to increase the usage right now.

We're happy with technical support. They've been fairly responsive. We log a call with Microsoft and they are able to log in and fix the problem for us.

We did previously use a different solution. It was something that we had developed internally.

The initial setup is quite complex. It requires someone with advanced knowledge to install it.

We outsourced the implementation to a consultant. They were very good and knew exactly what to do.

This solution uses the Microsoft licensing model. We pay every three years. The license includes support.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

The product is very good, aside from the patch management. I'd rate the solution five out of ten. If the patch management was better, I'd rate it much higher.

We use this solution for internal IT incidents, IT requests, and the service catalog.

This is an on-premises deployment.

This solution is easy to use. You don't have to create a new process.

The interface needs to support better customization.

I would like to have the ability to integrate with other systems from the back-end. I am using Orchestrator and it is a little bit difficult because there are too many constraints. I want to connect to other applications to get the data directly.

Mobile application integration would be an improvement.

We have had problems in the past, but the latest version is stable.

We only have one location with one database that is centralized. 

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We use it when we want to push out OS upgrades to our users around the world.

In years past we used to go to the client to upgrade, etc. It was quite cumbersome. The solution has made managing the environment streamlined and much easier. I don't have to go to the client physically.

The remote access is one of the features I really enjoy. The pushing of email updates and things like that are very good. Also, the solution's patches have been very useful.

It crashes our client's computers. Sometimes they get blue screens. It would be useful if SCSM could check the upgrades or patches before we implemented them to see if they are going to crash a client's system. Or, if it does install, and the client's system crashes, it would be good if the solution could revert back somehow.

The solution is quite stable. We don't have errors or bugs or anything like that.

The solution is scalable. It's easy to expand. We don't have plans to increase usage at this time, however.

Technical support is good. They are very responsive.

The solution we had previously was more manual. We had to physically go to the computer to update everything.

The initial setup was a bit complex. It wasn't that user-friendly. My team had to play around with it a bit.

We implemented the solution ourselves.

I think it's the value for money we are seeing in terms of ROI. We've saved a lot of man-hours. We have branches in the US and a lot of times in the past it used to involve you going over there, you meet your team member and having to actually fly physically. Now, most of the software we do remotely.

We are using the private cloud deployment model.

The advice I would give to others attempting to implement the solution is that you need to have a thorough, good understanding of the application, or else it may seem a bit complicated. Whoever is going to use it has to understand it or get some training. 

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for this product is to manage customer service.

This product has helped our organization by allowing people to connect with each other.

The best thing about this product is that it is digital.

The price of this solution is high and it needs to be cheaper.

This is a stable solution.

It is an expensive solution.

I would recommend this product to a colleague from another company.

Overall, I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

The primary use is for administrative use. We use it for the reporting, deployment, and ITSM services. 

It is easy to download from the Microsoft site. And, if you wish you can do a download trial, and deploy in a virtual lab. It is easy to use. It is fairly user-friendly. 

There are a few bugs. I would definitely suggest that if the end user is a layman, he needs to be trained how to use the solution properly.

It is a stable product.

The scalability is a collaborative with SCOM, and SCSM. SCSM is a configuration manager for page and software development. You can see your systems which have been updated and it can easily deploy the new things as well. You can also see it is a collaborative operations manager and integration manager. Sometimes there are resource qualities that you gain in multiple services one point to another point.

In the past, I had to use tech support when I installed SCSM from a desktop and it would not open. I sent a ticket to  Microsoft and in around a half an hour, they replied to me and within 10-15 minutes, they resolved the issue. I t was fast and good service.

It is a lower price vs. other things on the market.