We use this solution for managing IT assets and business operations.
We are also using it to help make better business decisions.
Download the ServiceNow Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: June 2022
ServiceNow is a cloud-based task-management platform that specializes in IT operations management (ITOM), IT services management (ITSM), and IT business management (ITBM). ServiceNow allows users to manage their teams, projects, and customer interactions using a variety of different plugins and apps with which it easily integrates.
ServiceNow offers prebuilt applications to support any process, as well as a framework and tools that allow you to build your own.
ServiceNow’s service management solutions include change, request, incident, problem, and cost management, as well as HR, IT, field service, and facilities management solutions. They also cover business management solutions such as vendor performance management, financial management, performance analytics and project portfolio suite, as well as governance, risk, and compliance.
“The Smarter Way to Workflow”
ServiceNow’s activities, processes, and tasks are overseen as part of a comprehensive managed workflow that supports such features as real-time collaboration, communication, and resource sharing. ServiceNow’s suite of products allow for operation using serverless computing, and include the categories of Business Apps, Customer Service, HR, IT, and Security.
ServiceNow can be used to support most workflows because of the wide range of tools it offers. These include on-suite ticketing tools, predictive modeling to manage workflows, and benchmarking for the tracking of progress. ServiceNow can assist with artificial intelligence and machine learning processes and can be used to organize the cases of a help/service desk as well as for instance management and problem management. It also smoothly integrates with many legacy systems.
ServiceNow offers service management software for industries including:
Reviews from Real Users
IT Central Station users prefer ServiceNow to its competitors because of its scalability, stability, and ease of use. It helps everyone in the company to be on the same page by creating a single source of record across all departments. One user stated that “I’ve definitely used over 20 project management solutions, but they can't be compared with ServiceNow.” Another said that “ServiceNow is an industry leader in multiple areas and provides an excellent ROI.”
AAA, AstraZeneca, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Broadcom, Christus Health, Epicor, Equinix, GE Capital, Intuit, KPMG, Loyola Marymount University, OshKosh, Quantas, RedHat, Royal Bank of Scotland, Swiss Re, U.S. Department of Energy, Safeway, Yale University, and Zillow
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.