ServiceNow Reviews

Everything that I've done over the last six years with ServiceNow has been for hospital systems. It was used at different levels for different clients. Many times, it was being used by the whole organization, but my involvement has always been for the department projects. There was significant effort into reporting and dashboards and some automation for approvals. I am currently using its latest version.

Visibility and resource management are the two areas that are improved by the ServiceNow Project Management implementation. The Project Management module provides visibility to leadership. We are able to get accurate dashboards and, more importantly, proper resource management. A lot of this isn't necessarily ServiceNow functionality. It is also a matter of implementation and adoption process.

Before ServiceNow, in the environments I've been worked with, there were a bunch of files, such as Microsoft Project plans or Excel spreadsheets, all over the place, and very rarely anybody had a clear understanding of where we were in the project. By the time they had an understanding, the document used to become dated. 

Being able to have the required information for project management is valuable. I've got multiple people accessing it, and I'm tracking tasks with percentages done. It allows me to have detailed notes and provides the ability to attach documents. I have used a lot of project management solutions, and there were gaps in terms of what was available. ServiceNow has got all the features and functionalities.

It is a solid solution. It is also easy to get into and use. It is certainly highly scalable. 

The reporting, which also includes dashboards, needs to be improved. Both dashboards and reporting require subject matter experts. A lot of end-user configuration and functionality comes with ServiceNow and it is not bad, but when I want to do something slightly more sophisticated, I've got to get a ServiceNow subject matter expert to get those dashboards all set up. One of the big reasons why that's so difficult is that ServiceNow is effectively a whole bunch of databases, and almost every module is fundamentally a database, so pulling information from multiple modules is painful. The key thing here is the Time Tracking piece, which is rather important because that's what helps you automate the percentage done inline. Getting a report that shows combined information from Time Tracking and Project Management into a single view is difficult.

There should be the ability to turn on and off portions of Project Management. I'm not asking them to do a finance portion of Project Management through the interface. Currently, there are hundreds of fields that project managers are looking at and trying to decide whether they should fill them out or not. Being able to configure the user interface without a subject matter expert would be really great. 

When you want to get a little more value out of the product and pull data from multiple modules and do something that isn't built-in and is a user-configurable thing, it gets ugly. Currently, as soon as you install the new version, you've got to go back there and make all those tweaks. There should be just a configuration file that goes to the new version. When a new release comes out and I've tweaked it, I shouldn't have to go back and manually tweak everything again. 

When we look at ITSM pieces, there is a knowledge base that works really well. I feel that the Project Management module does not leverage the knowledge base the way it should. I don't think it needs to be a separate knowledge base. There should be links. Currently, if I am configuring a project and looking at a particular tab or field, and I want to know more details about that, there is no simple way other than to go into the knowledge base and do a search. There is no simple way for me to just click and see the approved knowledge base article about that particular tab or field. 

There is no built-in ability to get to these articles, and the customer would have to build it. All the stuff is in the knowledge base, but I am constantly required to go and do a search and find it. After that, I have to try and figure out if this is the approved one. Most knowledge bases are designed so that your end users can submit articles, at least successful ones. You've got to get the subject matter expertise into the knowledge articles, and there is a clear delineation between the ones that are approved versus the ones that work right. I want both types of articles in there, but I want to be able to delineate which ones are the approved ones and tie them in Project Management. This functionality is already there in some other areas, but it is not there in Project Management. Not being able to link that knowledge base in a more fluid way is a big miss because it just makes adoption much harder.

Resource management should be easier. This is an area where I would love to see an improvement. The nature of ServiceNow is that it tends to be a bunch of fields. It is a bit like an Excel spreadsheet. You're in a software interface, but you've got a bunch of rows and columns. Other than dashboards, there are a lot of rows and columns views that often do not help you to easily see and manage resources. More graphical and more click-and-drag ability around resource management would be really good. The data is in there, and you can run dashboards, reports, and stuff like that, and very often, get the information in a somewhat consumable view. However, it tends to have frozen columns. It would be amazing if they can make resource management a little bit more graphical. There are other solutions that I've seen where resource management was a more visual experience.

I have been using this solution for six years.

From a perspective of it working, there are bugs occasionally, but for the most part, it is very solid. There are always pockets of problems, but when it comes to Project Management, I am yet to see a significant bug or issue. Most of the bugs and issues are more related to a lack of functionality as opposed to something that is broken or bad data. All such functionalities get added in the next version. 

From the perspective of doing what it is supposed to do, it is very solid. My experience has been very good, especially with the most recent release.

It is highly scalable. Once you get over the initial pricing shock, you can have multiple people in there, and you can scale quickly and easily. It is one of those things where you get a better price for more people and most subscription licenses. Technically, it can scale up, but it starts getting expensive.

In the current environment, they have licenses for 180 people who are actively using the Project Management module. They have 30,000 end users, and their users have view-only access to Project Management. Once it is stable, and they are completely comfortable with it, which may be a year or longer, they might potentially expand it to the entire environment. They have 30,000 people in the US, and they also have health systems in South America. So, the total number of users could be between 50,000 to 60,000. Going to South America would probably be two to three years out.

I've got a lot of experience with ServiceNow outside of the Project Management module. Focusing just on the Project Management module, my experiences have been very good. ServiceNow, at least for this particular module, has been smart and only tends to let you get on the phone with somebody who really knows the product. There are not that many support calls typically, and they tend to be just the technical staff that are supporting the module. While you can have end-user support, I've not worked with many customers who buy the support for the Project Management module for anybody who is not actively using it as a project manager, and even those project managers usually rely on the core administrator team. They'll tell them what the problem is, and that core team will call support.

When I've been on the calls with support, which I have done on a regular basis over the last couple of years and certainly with this current customer, I've been very pleased with their knowledge. These are highly technical calls, and it is not what I would call typical support. It is definitely the third-tier support that we are calling and getting, and my experience has been extremely good for the Project Management module.

I've definitely used over 20 project management solutions, but they can't be compared with ServiceNow. Some of them were homegrown, and some of them were built into the electronic medical record solution that was there. 

The current customer I'm working for didn't make a switch. They had made that decision and gone to ServiceNow four years ago. They adopted Project Management probably two years ago. It seemed very logical to go ahead and switch over to ServiceNow Project Management because people were already logging into ServiceNow. About a year ago, in fact, right about the time when COVID hit us, they actually finished the implementation. There have been some hits and misses because the staff resigned and things like that. 

Other customers that I've worked for had either Microsoft Project files or Excel spreadsheets. Many times, they also had a web-based project management solution that literally was a task list with a percent complete and literally four fields per task, and those would be stacked in. A lot of these were more team management solutions such as Microsoft Office 365. None of them is a competitor to what you get from ServiceNow.

It is overly complex mainly because it has a lot of content. There are some out-of-the-box configurations, and there is also a lot of content that is not configurable out of the box. Of course, most organizations aren't mature enough to use the additional content and additional tabs. Typically, the implementers are smart enough to deal with that, but I've worked with customers that weren't smart enough to go ahead and say, "Hey, we need a subject matter expert to come in and install this module." Sometimes, they brought somebody in to do just the bare bone install, and then they wanted to configure it themselves. 

You need a subject matter expert. ServiceNow doesn't always do it, and very often, it is third parties who implement it, but they don't do a great job of educating their customer on what they should and shouldn't do as their initial install. They just say here is the tool to some extent. You should ideally go for subject matter experts that are either recommended by ServiceNow or are directly from ServiceNow. Of course, it gets more expensive as you go up that chain.

ServiceNow could do a better job of prepping their coordinators and supporting this process. It is tough because most of the customers first need training on project management in general before you start teaching them how to use the tool. There is no lack of support. It is just not well-organized and prioritized support. There is a knowledge article for everything from ServiceNow, and all the information is there, but it is not organized in a way, especially for a new user, to say that don't worry about this. We'll get to this later. Here are the things you should worry about, and here are the things that you really should do as best practice. That's the key.

I have been advising and working with implementation teams over the last three years. Every single time, after they implemented and started using it, they started to discover things that they wish they'd known beforehand. That's why it would be good to have an organized set of best practices from ServiceNow saying, "Hey, you're implementing. This is new. You don't have a mature organization that has a bunch of requirements. So, here are the minimum out-of-the-box things that you should enable. We're also going to hide all that stuff that you don't need, and we're going to get these fundamentals working." Guided and organized best practices for organizations that are new to project management would be a huge win for ServiceNow.

It is a cloud product, so it requires just configuration from us. Typically, implementation takes two to three months, which includes all the beforehand and after closeout. You have some meetings, make some agreements, install the product, and get it up and running. Installation would take just two to three weeks, and the implementation would take two to three months because you've got to do training and everything else to truly get it in there. Most organizations also end up having to come back and do remediation that takes an additional three to six months. We're not talking about the setup where everybody is working on it. We're talking about a setup where you've got a small team that is typically working on the issues, coming up with solutions, and then implementing them later. There is usually a three-month to six-month clean-up afterward. It's not uncommon for me to see close to a full year from the first conversation to when they feel like they've got stable, usable, and good reporting coming out of the solution.

It was a company recommended by ServiceNow. ServiceNow has got a top-six list, and this was number two on their list. In terms of knowledge and the ability to solve problems, they were very good. Because there are no organized best practices and things like that from ServiceNow to help customers in avoiding mistakes, I've not seen an implementor that does it properly. I am constantly trying to help, but, of course, you also typically have that executive that just wants to get it slammed in. This is because they think that with the tools in place, things will suddenly get better. However, good technology rarely results in good results. You've got to have adoption in order to have good results.

While I'm certainly complaining about some deficiencies, I have been very pleased with this implementor's ability to come in, implement, explain, tweak, and get things right. I have been very pleased with what they do. Deficiencies are more typical of all of the implementers, including ServiceNow.

In terms of maintenance, I have not worked too closely with the PMO staff that does that, but as I understand it, they've got four people. Two are directly involved, and two are more along the lines of training and support. There are really four roles for them. There is one role of subject matter experts who are constantly looking at what functionality is in use and for which functionality they want to start adopting. They look at what can we do with the Project Management tool. They also create a lot of dashboards and reports. The end-user functionality is very powerful, but when you want a dashboard that starts grabbing things from multiple places, it is not easy. They spend a fair amount of time doing that kind of work. They also provide support and spend a fair amount of time troubleshooting the data, which isn't because the product isn't working correctly. It is because the users aren't correctly using it. They also simply look at the data for management. They kind of audit the data to see that what we know and what we're hearing in the status update meetings matches what's in the tool. When it doesn't match, they audit the content and figure out whether there is a problem. All four of them probably spend at least 30% or 40% of their time doing that audit process, sitting in meetings, hearing what's going on, looking at the status reports, matching those up with what's in the tool, and making sure that it matches.

That's a tough call. I would say yes, but I don't think that many of the customers are calculating or tracking that sort of thing. From my perspective, when we say the return on investment, a lot of times we're talking about hard dollars and being able to readily show that my expenses were reduced. The return on investment for most of the project management solutions is improved performance in project management, and therefore, it is a bit of a soft cost saving because of the improved efficiency and ability to deliver projects. That's usually where ROI is seen, and it is tough to make that a metric.

I'm not aware of any additional costs. I'm pretty sure that the current client is paying just the licensing fee per user. I do know that they've got some support agreement with ServiceNow, but I don't think that is broken out or specific to Project Management. It is just inclusive.

I certainly would recommend it on a regular basis as a viable scalable project management solution. It is a solid solution. It has got all the features and functionalities I want. The lack of visualization of data, ease of implementation, and ease of configuration results in difficulty in training people, and it needs to be more visual and a little bit easier to configure and maintain. Currently, as soon as you install the new version, you've got to go back there and make all those tweaks. It is not all or nothing sort of thing. It is just a case of how much of the functionality done in a manual way has to be redone in each update. That could change over time. They're constantly improving how this works, but in my experience, that was very much the case for the last two upgrades that I've done. Occasionally, I've had problems where existing data from a prior version did not migrate. There is some wonkiness, and you got to go in and clean things up a little bit, but it is pretty minor. It is one of those things where when you've got a solution like ServiceNow that every single person in the organization is using, and you do the update the next morning and realize that none of your reports are right because you've tweaked it, and now, you have to go and fix it. In fairness, if you only use it out of the box the way ServiceNow says you should use Project Management, it probably wouldn't be an issue, but I am yet to see a customer use ServiceNow Project Management out of the box with no changes.

Comparing it to all other project management solutions without consideration of cost, I would rate ServiceNow a seven out of ten.

We use this solution for managing IT assets and business operations.

We are also using it to help make better business decisions.

Using ServiceNow has forced conversations around the whole IT domain, on how we can manage the IT assets through their life cycles. This starts with identifying the need and introducing it, developing it, and deploying it, to then eventually making decisions to remove the asset from the operation.

I can use it to see the whole life cycle.

As a company, it's about how you get your data in there and manage it.

I like all of the operations and features that I have seen.

I like that it's running on a unified platform and that there is no data integration.

I can get a real-time view of how our assets are performing.

I also like that with the operations running on a unified platform, I can then get a better picture of ITHealth through the application platform management tool.

I really like what they've done with their common service data model because now I can make a connection between the business process and technology. I can start showing the role some of the technologies are playing and talk about the health of the technology and even connecting it up to the business strategies. You can do that with the APM component.

I like having one platform to get that view.

The marketing needs improvement. This platform can really do a lot and I don't think they do it justice for what it can do. 

I have to go out there and market things. Whereas I think if their teams were a little more in tune with what they could actually deliver, they would do a better job selling it.

I still haven't seen a holistic picture of the whole platform and what they can really do. I don't know if that's intentional or if they're not selling it.

The visuals are the one area where there is opportunity for improvement. 

The reporting can be difficult, but they are making it a little easier to create reports or introduce a wizard to help you walk through them.

You have to know the entity-relationship diagram to get the right data and make the right connections. 

The visual representation of the data is an area where they fall short of, but they do have a partner who is native to their product. It does a much better job visualizing the data. I don't know if that is there, the way they're closing the gap.

I would like to see, from a business process automation perspective, where an engineer or architect could implement the automation. You don't have to write the spec and hand it off to a ServiceNow developer.

For some of the things that are happening with the other BPM tools, I'd like to see ServiceNow be a little more user-friendly. Another thing I'd like to see is that they have a representation and their service taxonomy of a more modern application for events business logic, as well as APIs. As it is now, it's still in the application and infrastructure perspective, but that's not totally a modern construction of an application.

I have been using ServiceNow for 12 years.

We are running the current version. 

From a SaaS perspective, it's very stable. I think in the 12 years that I've been running it, I have seen maybe one or two outages. For the most part, it's pretty stable.

I haven't really experienced any performance problems. I am assuming that they are monitoring and extending it when they need to.

I don't know how many users they have at my current company. In my last company, we had more than 1,000 users. They were primarily IT except for the work request part of it that came in from the entire enterprise.

It is being used extensively. There are definitely plans it increase the usage. I am working on the plans to extend it. It was just introduced in March, more for the kind of IT service side of it. Problems, incidents, change, and work requests for example. 

Now I am looking to bring in governance, risk, and compliance. 

Also, having conversations with other areas like business continuity, disaster recovery, and security about how they could leverage the same platform for some of their operations.

I think whoever purchased it had this in their vision, they're just not communicating who's vision right now. I have been having those conversations to get people to understand what we will be able to do in the future so that they buy into making the move and investing in learning how to use ServiceNow.

I wasn't on the support team. I am on the architecture team, but as far as technical insights go, and to help make decisions, they have been very good at sharing knowledge. 

I have a couple of connections right now who, as I'm trying to push things out a little bit more, I'm pinging. I am getting help with enterprise ERDs and different things, and they're very responsive to them.

I was not involved in the setup of this solution. It was already in place when I started with the company.

To others who are interested in implementing ServiceNow, I would say, consider it for running your IT operations, but implement it capability by capability. This will allow you to see the big picture of what you're going to get at the end of it. You can't do a big bang approach on this. Rather, you have to be very deliberate in how you implement it.

They have thought through it, and not just the whole domain in the platform but now they have connected it to the business side, the business needs and the processes, the work that people do down to the technology. I think that was missing a few years ago, probably more than a few years ago. Because I think they met with them in 2016 around it. But they have got that now, and it is really powerful. 

I've been working through the taxonomy with different parts of the organization and the fact that they can start making some of these connections in a system I think is phenomenal.

Also, they have the assets included. When you do an assessment to see, how healthy it is, you can not only see who has impacted the business applications that are impacted, which drives you to the people and the processes and all those things. You can also see what the root cause of the cross problem is, and manage the root cause in a more holistic manner.

For its space and what it is capable of doing, I would rate ServiceNow a nine out of ten.

One of the benefits of the platform itself is that it's not covering IT service management only. It, for example, has price service management functionality. 

There are lots of modules around IT service management such as IT business management and human resource management (HRC). Bigger clients, enterprises, are often looking for end-to-end business flow automation. Part of those processes, in other cases, are standalone solutions. The ability to implement end-to-end flows, including business ones, is the most important aspect of the solution.

I sometimes try to compare ServiceNow with Micro Focus. When I worked with Micro Focus or HPE, I liked how they communicate with partners, how they provide materials. ServiceNow really does lots of things in this area, however, there is definitely some space for improvement there. For instance, some workshop materials, et cetera, are lacking. They need to be providing vendors and implementation partners with materials and guidance on implementation.

The solution is mostly on the cloud. On-premises implementations are more difficult. 

I've been using ServiceNow for the last five years. I remember my first implementation project was in 2017. Probably before that, I started using ServiceNow and did the training, et cetera.

The stability is pretty good. On average, I don't see many clients complaining about the performance side of stability or availability on the platform.

We did some cases to improve server functionality with scaling. We created clusters. In terms of the scalability of ServiceNow itself, several instances of ServiceNow with synchronization, et cetera, as well as performance, I don't recall scaling so much. In most cases, it's not really required as one instance of ServiceNow is good enough for most clients. They also handle all this backup, monitoring, and et cetera, internally. 

I rarely deal with technical support, as, most often at least, I focus our innovation on implementation projects. Support is more active when it's implemented already and rolled out to production. Other personnel from my department handle that, for sure. From my understanding, in terms of the quality of the support,  it's quite typical. Sometimes it could be better and faster. However, if we can imagine the flow of those tickets for the ServiceNow support side, I would imagine it's quite big. Therefore, I'd say that it's acceptable and understandable.

I also work with Atlassian's Jira Service Desk. I used to work with Service Manager five years ago.

For ServiceNow, I really like it's a single platform. Everything within the platform is integrated already. There are quite rich integration capabilities with other systems at the client-side. For Micro Focus, you can install it in the cloud or on-premises. ServiceNow doesn't really allow you to install anything on-premises. 

On the Micro Focus side, some of their products were really great, such as Universal CMDB or UCMDB. At some point, it's still better than the current ServiceNow CMDB. Some single individual products from Micro Focus were really great for me. However, in some cases, when you come into a client and try to solve a complex task, you need to map the requirements to particular products. For Micro Focus, sometimes it was problematic as you required many products solving more or less the same purposes. At ServiceNow, each module is quite unique and serving its unique purpose. It's more like LEGOs. 

With Micro Focus, I remember in some cases, their solutions were quite resource-consuming. It's pretty predictable since HPE at the time was both a software and hardware vendor. It was good for them to sell software plus hardware. Sometimes it was how to understand why particular software could consume so many resources. That's not a problem with ServiceNow at all as it's on the cloud mostly.

The initial setup is pretty clear. If we try to compare the implementation of some traditional modules, like incident management, request fulfillment, it's an industry standard. It's very good. ServiceNow, from a functionality and partner support perspective, has lots of materials. However, when it comes to some newer modules, some ITBM applications, et cetera, sometimes when they just release the first version of the module, and it might be a bit different from a functionality perspective. There's a lack of documentation and support. That's quite typical. I feel like Hewlett-Packard pays a bit more attention to that.

We're implementors. We implement the solution for our clients.

ServiceNow is still mostly used as an ITSM platform. And IT service management mostly feeds some kind of internal purposes. It's not a business-related platform. It's supposed to save money, not to help to earn money.

Some clients come in to get some help with the reimplementation of a platform. Others are looking for certain improvements to the existing platform. In some cases, it's a greenfield implementation. For greenfield implementations, especially when it comes to big enterprises, the question behind the scenes is we don't really understand how much we spend on IT. There are likely many unrelated budgets, which are not even visible. The first question is how much you really spend. And if they get an answer to this question, it's already a good achievement. 

Over time, we baseline the spending and we implement new functionality and new processes, new modules. In some cases, it's quite expensive compared to the business itself. By that, I mean, the processes we implement. We may have 20 people doing some job and if you look at their salaries for a couple of years, it's a lot. We come in and implement and automate the process for them, and in those cases, it might be five years of salaried budget saved. However, that's years. You won't see the savings immediately. It will be something witnessed over time.

We're a ServiceNow partner. We help to implement ServiceNow for our clients.

We're working on likely the latest version of the solution. ServiceNow provides upgrades two times a year. Previous versions get obsolete so that you can't actually use them.

I often see that people tend to simplify things and they expect any system, no matter if it's ServiceNow or any other system or platform from the area, that the implementation would solve the entire ATSM matter. However, in fact, with ATSM, it's about products, people, processes, and partners. All the efforts should be covered. No solution is a silver bullet.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. it's a very good solution, however, there's always room for improvement.

We primarily use the solution just for our ticketing purposes to keep track of our incidents, projects, and tasks.

We use it for internal projects, circuit routers, upgrades, keeping track of vendor contracts, et cetera. Basically, it's just a repository of everything that we do and to support our internal clients that deal with maintaining bookkeeping as well as providing the tickets, keeping track of projects, and stuff like that.

It's great for keeping everyone informed in the company - not just IT. Everyone becomes aware of change requests and incidents so the entire company is on the same page.

It's great that everybody is in the loop - especially from an incident perspective for a user. If I'm waiting for somebody to get back to me, or if I'm researching something, I could update the notes and I don't have to call the user. The user will get that ticket via email. They're aware. You don't have to go and chase people and update them individually, or even on a group basis. Whatever I enter into my notes is sent out to everyone. There's no gap in information sharing.

The general incident management is very good. On a day-to-day basis, we get incidents and we need to keep records. The incident tickets are being used a lot.

The change management within ServiceNow is great. It's great due to the fact that it keeps track, of everything. Any change requests that touch a particular business or function can be used and distributed amongst whoever's involved in that project. Everyone is informed of what changes are needed or done. I don't need to go and individually create a separate distribution list. It's simple.

The solution offers very good functionality and transparency.

From my perspective, when I create any incidents or even a change request or any projects that I'm dealing with, I could upload as many documents as I want, unless people take the software and they basically structure it to the way they want it. 

It's easy to use. If somebody is in an IT business or even has a basic knowledge of any ticketing system, they could learn it very quickly.

The solution is very stable.

The product scales well.

There aren't any improvements that I could suggest off top of my head, as it's a well-informed well-structured solution. From a business perspective or an individual, IT perspective, there isn't much to change at all. 

Some companies may find that adding as many documents as they like to an incident makes the solution problematic. 

Once a change request has been created once it's been approved and been submitted, there is no way to go in on that particular change request and submit an additional task. You would have to revert the change, then submit an additional task for a group to act on. I'd like it if we had the ability to, once the task had been approved and created, go in and create an additional task for a particular group to action. That's definitely one thing I would want to make a change to.

I've used the solution for a very long time. With my current company, I've used it for five years. However, I also used it at my previous company for around 20 years. It's been a few decades at this point.

The stability is very good. We haven't had any problems. It hasn't gone down and it hasn't crashed. There are no bugs or anything like that. I don't see it any now and I haven't in the past - even after 20 or more years. This is flawless software. 

It's scalable. You could easily modify it and you could create reports or you could do whatever you want to do with it based on the privileges. There's no downside to it. You could create your individual report or you could use a template and create your own individual report and you can use search criteria for your own searches for incidents, change, tasks, anything. It's very flexible.

We have about 100 users on the solution right now.

We may increase usage in the future. Right now, it's being used quite extensively.

I can't speak to how technical support is in terms of helpfulness. We'll go to our backend developers and they basically deal or interact with them. I haven't had any interaction with the ServiceNow technicians or anybody else from ServiceNow.

I've been in the industry for almost 20 or 25 years. With the previous ticketing system that I used to use, which was Remedy, there's a big difference. ServiceNow is just so much easier.

I didn't handle the initial setup.

That's a different group that does altogether. It's a packaging portion. We basically tell them if there are certain things or floor processes that we need to create. We'll create it on a front end, we'll create the diagram, the workflow, and everything else. We give it to the backend office and they'll basically make the changes as they go. They'll give us a test case scenario before it goes live, and any modification or any changes that are required. We reply back to them with the information and they basically make the changes according to what we want. From a packaging or modification perspective, it's not something that my team or I do. 

I'm not sure how many users are currently maintaining the product.

We're just a customer and an end-user.

We are using the most recent version of the solution at this time.

The product is well-versed, and it's simple to use - which is why I would recommend it. You've just got to know how you're going to organize or structure everything. Whoever's basically managing or deploying the software needs to map it out. They should be able to modify or scale it to the way they want it, however. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with its capabilities. The flexibility and the ability to modify what you want are great - and, on top of that, it's pretty simple. If you know how to do a simple query, you should be able to pull up anything that you want. That's what I like about this software

We primarily use the solution for tickets and we use it for order processing.

We use the product for incident management, asset management, and service management. Those are the three big use cases. It's mostly asset management.

We use a ton of the features.

The best feature for me, personally, is Discovery. That one is super useful for us. Discovery is super advantageous. That has brought us a long way forward. That is a big deal for us. It's gotten us away from the manual of walking the floor to trying to find the assets.

The other one that is really big for us is Automatic Workflows. That is a big deal and certainly helps with the streamlining of the process and the interconnectivity with incident management.

The solution is very stable.

The company went out of their way to help us and even helped us save about six months of deployment time.

If you stick to the out-of-the-box solution, it's an easy setup.

You can scale the solution quite well.

Technical support is very helpful and very responsive.

The licensing needs to be divided into tiers in order to attract lower-level users.

Right now, the licensing is kind of an all or nothing and so what happens is, is that either somebody has full access or they don't have any access due to the way the licensing works. There is this kind of view for ITIL purposes access that we kind of need, and we don't have access to it. If you think of RACI, it's informed access. You would need a full license to be able to do it. And we just don't. It really caused us a level of visibility loss. 

Basically, what the licensing offers now is just for doers. There's no viewer role. It really needs a viewer role or an approver role level of licensing without a doer role license having to be issued.

If you move away from the out-of-the-box configurations, the initial implementation can get complex and take a while.

I've been using the solution for about two years at this point.

I love the stability. We were lucky enough to be physically located very close to Service Now. When we were hitting problems with our internal organization to roadblocks, we literally drove up to Service Now headquarters and sat down with them for an eight-hour session to revamp our whole internal process. I was pretty sure that if we would have continued down our own process, we would have taken another six months. However, with Service Now's assistance, we fixed it in one day just by having access directly to Service Now. That was an amazing process. They enabled us to jump forward six months and made things super stable.

We're a huge company. Scalability is definitely possible. We're scaling to over 100,000 users. We have asset management users, incident managements, software deployment, hardware deployments, break fixes, asset monitoring, et cetera, all on this solution. 

We do plan to increase usage in the future.

If a company needs to scale, it can do so, no problem.

Technical support has been great. They are extremely helpful and responsive. We're quite satisfied with the level of service we receive as an organization.

We did previously use different solutions. Everything was fragmented. We were able to combine multiple systems. We tied multiple systems to combine them into one ServiceNow offering. We wanted to consolidate 50 or more systems into a single system and Service Now is one of the two options we looked at that was able to do that.

The deployment process is basically about requiring, gathering, and then developing or customizing the product itself for the workflows and then deploying it out into the field. It's really pretty simple, as long as you stick to a lot of the out-of-box functionality. 

When you start to get away from the out-of-box functionality, you can really link in the deployment process. Anything that you go out past that out-of-box functionality, you can really hurt yourself. Basically, it has the capability of getting very complicated. However, if you stick to out-of-the-box, it's simple. We personally found that out the hard way.

For us, the deployment process took two years. 

We recruited some outside help to assist us in the implementation. We found that having experts on hand was extremely beneficial.

I'd recommend outside help. There are definitely some nuances within the deployment that having some experts within Service Now is very helpful - especially when you're first time to have some outside thinking. 

Our organization has noticed an ROI. They're happy with it.

The licensing needs to offer a variety of levels to meet what an organization actually needs. Right now, it's all or nothing, and that can get costly.

We also evaluated SAP against ServiceNow. We ended up choosing ServiceNow in the end, however, I can't recall what the deciding factor or factors were.

I'm a customer and end-user. 

We are using the FAAS version of the solution currently.

I would advised those companies considering the solution to take advantage of what the programs do rather rather than try to lift and shift.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten overall.

We use it for interim problem change configuration, regress management, and knowledge management.

I've found a lot of pros with ServiceNow. The user interface and the feasibility to modify the GUI are great features.

It is easily configurable and has a good developer society online, available for any issues from the backend.

On the front end, we have good workflow management, ease of work, and ease of business. It helps us to translate the business requirements and technical requirements in an easier manner.

One of the best things is the reporting; I like how you can manage the data and present it.

ServiceNow is also stable and scalable, and has good technical support.

Vulnerability management could be improved. Also, integration with tools such as Microsoft Defender ATP needs improvement.

The price is on the higher end.

I've been using it for four years.

In the last four years, we might have had an outage, but the stability is very good. Since it's cloud-based, we don't see many performance issues.

Scalability wise, we added one more module for the vulnerability response, and we have not faced any issues.

We are happy with where we are, but we are adding on a few things. Whenever there's a new requirement that comes up, we plan to move away from the manual work, and we try to do everything in ServiceNow.

We have two types of users: the idea user who actually works on the solution and the requester who raises the request. In total, the end users that have access to raise the tickets are around 13,000 plus, and those who actually work on the solution, designing, working on the tickets, etc., are in total around 300 plus.

The technical support is good. They're responsive, and they keep a tab on whatever issues we are facing. They have a dedicated team that handles them and even a dedicated portal where you can raise tickets and flag them.

I was using Remedy and HP Service Manager. We switched because of ServiceNow's scalability, stability, and the user interface. I believe that the business mindset of whoever created or expanded ServiceNow was to make sure that we have a good developer community with an open system for people to understand and expand their knowledge, a better UI, and better workflow management, which I did not see in Remedy. 

Remedy has a lot of constraints; the integration and referencing had issues. ServiceNow has an option of referencing many tables in one form, but that was not available in Remedy. Also, Remedy was not that scalable.

We needed a person to have good technical knowledge to consider the system, but with ServiceNow, you don't need technical knowledge; they have made everything UI. So, that's a good thing.

The cost might be on the higher side, but the services were better, so we chose ServiceNow.

The initial setup was straightforward. They have out of the box solutions readily available, so if you're just going by the out of the box configuration, it might take a few months. Maybe a 12 week period is good enough to get it up and running.

We got the ServiceNow vendor team to help us with the initial setup.

Overall, I have seen a substantial ROI when it comes to reporting: a faster response and also the assignment of tickets. If you have to talk to your leadership and tell them what the status of a particular project is, you can create your own dashboards, which will give them a glimpse of everything in one go. They won't have to talk to you every time; they can just open it up.

The second ROI is that you don't have to log into ServiceNow every time; you can integrate ServiceNow with teams, Microsoft teams, or any other tool, and you will get the notifications over there itself. It saves a lot of time from that perspective.

The licensing is on a yearly basis. The pricing is on the high side, but if you look at the stability and option to work, it's kind of justified.

When you buy the license, it also comes with the yearly tech support. So, you don't have any additional costs per se.

We moved away from HPSM to ServiceNow, and we evaluated Remedy.

They have a lot of libraries available online. If you are planning to implement ServiceNow, you should first compare your current system with the online free developer instance from ServiceNow, which has all the features that are present in the licensed versions.

I would suggest that you see if the added business is supported in ServiceNow so that when you implement the system, you can raise these special issues with the consultants.

You should go ahead and create your own instances and see whether the system is working as expected and whether it suits your requirements. When you're implementing, make sure that you implement everything and don't leave parts for your own team to handle. Get everything done by the vendor in the first go.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate ServiceNow at ten.

The product is primarily used for HR service delivery, traditional IT service management, and, increasingly, integrated risk management, or IRM. 

The biggest area of growth is what we call creator workflows. This is building new applications on ServiceNow, using ServiceNow as a development platform. That's the biggest area of growth for us.

The initial setup can be quite straightforward.

The stability is quite good. It's pretty reliable.

It can scale well if you are managing IT assets.

The solution has good technical support and a strong community that can help solve problems.

The RPA needs improvement. That's a new area for them that they're just entering into now. 

Their user interface, their UX design, and their portal are all in the process of being improved. 

The footprint in non-IT assets, so managing assets outside of IT. That means building new CMDB class structures. Can they manage a hospital device, a manufacturing device, an oil-rig device, not just a server or a laptop or a printer? That's where they need to massively improve their reach. Reaching beyond IT asset management is the biggest challenge to ServiceNow right now.

It would be great if there was an accelerator or a fast-track tool or method to consider net new use cases for ServiceNow. Something almost like a solution innovation workshop environment, where you can test business ideas and work out which parts of the ServiceNow workflow can support those ideas - like a modeling tool.

I've been dealing with the product for 12 years, however, as an implementer, I don't use it on a daily basis. 

In 12 years, I've rarely seen a failure of their cloud hosting, if ever. It's incredibly stable. 

There are other questions then about performance, however. Sometimes it runs slowly in the cloud due to the number of transactions you're placing on it. That said, it doesn't fall over. It isn't compromised by a security breach. I'd give it 99 out of 100 for stability.

In its traditional IT areas, for example, managing IT assets, it is very scalable. There is a question mark over its scalability in terms of managing OT assets, operational technology assets. By that, I mean a device that's not an IT device. It could be your fridge, your cooker, your car, your oil rig. Scaling to manage the Internet of Things means that, in a company, you're not managing 1,000 servers. You could be managing a million devices. That's where scalability becomes more of a problem. It's managing the OT devices where there's not much clarity.

A lot of support comes from other companies that are using ServiceNow. There's a great ServiceNow community that shares ideas and answers ServiceNow questions. If you can't get the question answered by ServiceNow, you will have it answered by the ServiceNow partners or the ServiceNow customers who are part of the ServiceNow community. Support is very, very good as long as you have a wide ecosystem of options; you don't just depend upon the vendor and you also have other clients, partners, and companies that work with ServiceNow that you can reach out to.

The implementation process is straightforward if you stick to out-of-the-box settings. If you trust ServiceNow has configured their out-of-the-box settings, then stick with them and their processes and the setup is very straightforward.

The amount of time needed for deployment depends on which part of the solution you're deploying and for what scale of the customer. If you think of ServiceNow as 100 applications, if you're just deploying one small application out of 100 for a very small customer, it could take a few days. If you're deploying 50 applications around the world for an enterprise customer, it could take 1,000 days.

It's difficult to say how long it takes as it depends upon the complexity of the number of applications and the customer requirements.

Typically, you need one person to deploy it and one person to manage it.

You need a good technical consultant, a developer, and you need somebody that has project-management skills, and you need somebody with business-analysis skills: somebody who can interpret the business requirements and translate those into the configuration. 

A project might require lots of different roles, however, one person may be very skilled. He might have some development skills and project-management skills, and he is good at asking the right business questions. In the smallest deployments, one person could do all those things. However, in the biggest deployments, you will have a dedicated project manager, dedicated technical architect, dedicated developers, consultants, dedicated business analysts. There are lots of roles that need to be covered in a deployment, depending on the size of the deployment. One person or several people might be necessary to cover all those roles.

We implement the solution for our customers.

I work for a company that resells ServiceNow, and we implement it around the world. We're a big systems integrator. For years, we've worked with ServiceNow, implementing it for other customers to utilize.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We used ServiceNow for various functions like incident management, ITSM (information technology service management), and we also used it for CMDB (configuration management database).

I worked for a manufacturing company and we were using ServiceNow for managing the company's IT functions, particularly for ITSM.

In my current company, we use it for CMDB.

I found the reporting capabilities of ServiceNow really valuable.

The service catalog feature is also interesting, particularly because it is highly customizable. You can create anything you want to create. This is one of the good things I like about ServiceNow.

Its integration capabilities is also a valuable feature because you can connect ServiceNow with any other application.

What could be improved in ServiceNow is the response time or loading time. It's slower, but it could be based on the license you have. Everybody here in our company says it is slow whenever we access it, so that needs improvement.

The user interface can also be improved. They should make it better than what it is currently. It should be more user-friendly.

An additional feature I'd like to see in ServiceNow has something to do with its out of the box pattern. Currently, I'm using it mainly for CMDB. Each company will have different hardware or configuration items, but ServiceNow only provides certain scripts or patterns to discover all these onto the CMDB.

If there's any new device, we'll need to customize the out of the box pattern, so maybe that's a feature that can be improved. With any device you add, everything should be added on the CMDB using whatever out of the box pattern or script is provided in ServiceNow. Currently, that is not the case.

If we have a new device that is added to our company's network, we have to go and customize the existing ServiceNow pattern to discover that device. This is the problem we're facing.

I've been using ServiceNow for two years.

This tool is stable. It performs well, but like I mentioned, its response time can be improved, but overall, it's good. It's reliable.

I find this tool easy to scale.

Every now and then, we'll face some issues with scripting, pattern, etc. We always go to the HI portal which is the maintenance portal of ServiceNow, and there we ask for support by raising a ticket to ServiceNow directly.

The support is not 100% good, because sometimes we experience delays in their responses, but it's okay. It's not bad. They'll see to it that they resolve the issues, but it may not always be on time.

We used BMC Remedy, but since we were using a very old version, we can't compare it to ServiceNow. ServiceNow is a lot better and more user-friendly compared to that tool.

For large-scale companies, the cost of ServiceNow is not expensive, but for small and mid-scale companies, it is higher. I worked with large organizations and they never had a problem with the cost, so it depends on how large the company is.

I evaluated BMC Remedy.

I'm using the latest version of ServiceNow.

I was not involved in the initial setup of ServiceNow, whether in my previous or in my current company. I do not know much about it, but how easy or complex the setup is will depend on the company. If it is a large-scale company, the initial setup would be complex and it'll take a lot of time.

Even if it's deployed on cloud, it would still require maintenance. We just purchase the licenses and initially during deployment and training, they'll help. After that, it depends on the company to manage and maintain the solution. If we get into any issues, we'll definitely need to reach out to them.

We are 1,000 people in IT, so we have 1,000 IT users of ServiceNow. As for end users, we have between 30 to 40,000 employees in the company, and at least 30,000 employees will submit a request or incident using ServiceNow. We're using this tool on a daily basis.

I don't think there is any additional costs, as support is covered in the standard fees, but I could be wrong, as I was not involved in the initial setup or financial discussion, so I wouldn't know much about it.

My advice to others looking into using ServiceNow is that they can do their research and ensure that this platform is the one they're looking for. If after reading all the information and comparing different ITSM options available, they find that ServiceNow suits their business, then they can go for it. They should not go for it blindly, because there could be many others which are better than this solution. They should research well before they make their decision.

My score for ServiceNow is a seven out of ten.