ServiceNow Reviews

I use ServiceNow for incident management, problem management, change management, and request management.

I have found that sorting and grouping functions are particularly useful.

I find some features are difficult to use. For example, the creation of service catalog forms. Creating service catalog forms could be made easier.

In the next release, I would like to see some of the features and processes made to be simpler to use. For example, creating the service catalog forms, doing the CMDB, and integration with other systems have to be made easier to use.

I have been using this solution for almost two years.

It's a stable product.

This solution is scalable.

In our company, we have approximately 1,000 users. For me, I use it every day.

I rarely engage with technical support. I had a good experience with the one or two tickets that were submitted. They were able to resolve the issues and it was a positive experience.

Previously, I was using Jira. 

Jira is meant for small enterprises and it is much cheaper than ServiceNow. 

ServiceNow is meant for a much larger user base.

I was not a part of the initial setup. By the time I arrived, it had already been set up by someone else.

We have five to eight people with various tasks to maintain this solution.

I believe that they had an integrator to help them set up. That was in 2018. before I joined the company.

The licenses are expensive.

They pay a license fee per user. Jira is much cheaper than ServiceNow.

If I was in a small company with 500 users or less, I would use Jira. If I am in a company with 500 or more users then I would use ServiceNow.

For anyone who wants to start using ServiceNow, they need to ensure that they have the funds to finance it. The licenses are not cheap and they need to have a consultant that can help them to customize the functions or the features they need.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We run thousands of automations.

The reason that ServiceNow is as good as it is, and opposed to Remedy, Cherwell, and HP OpenView, is that ServiceNow was the first IT service management platform or enterprise.

ServiceNow was the first true enterprise to service management platform. They were the first to understand that a request is a request and service is service.

ServiceNow goes back internationally a long time ago when they were Fuji. ServiceNow releases are alphabetical. My experience started with Fuji, and they are on the Orlando release now. Even back then, they were able to put any process into ServiceNow, even if it wasn't and IT process, and have it managed through the platform.

Security needs some improvement. The governance, security incident management, cloud management, and the security module are getting better.

Service mapping could be less complicated. The configuration, and running it appropriately, but that's a difficult thing to do overall.

It needs to be more cost-effective because it can be pricey. 

I would love to see ServiceNow create a solid mid-market entry point for it. They tried it in the past and it failed. That was ServiceNow Express.

I have been using ServiceNow for over a decade.

ServiceNow is incredibly stable.

This solution is scalable to a point. Once you get as large as the Department of Veterans Affairs you will have some issues, but it scalable.

We have 3000 people here in our company. Anyone who is in IT is using ServiceNow.

I haven't contacted technical support. 

If you are as close to out-of-the-box as you need to be then you won't have any issues at all with ServiceNow.

ServiceNow is the least complex of all of the platforms available.

When I worked at the bank they went from zero to running it within three months. At that time when dealing with Remedy or other legacy systems, that was unheard of to go from nothing to running in three months.

With one of our customers, we had it up and running in one month.

We have seven members to maintain ServiceNow. They are developers, senior developers, and the head of service management.

The mandatory minimum is US$ 20,000 for licensing. They have a three-year cycle. I am not sure if it works out to be $60,000 for three years or if it's $20,000 for the three years. 

It's mainly for licensing. The more that you use it and the more it goes to other areas in your organization, the more licensing you will have to pay.

There may be some who look at this and use it for the HR service delivery or they could use another HR application that looks cheaper, but they will be missing the point of having all of the information on a single platform.

I manage an automation orchestration team. The focus of my team is external, not internal. The company uses ServiceNow. We are one of the largest and older consumers of ServiceNow. The members of my team have ServiceNow practice, infrastructure automation practice, could management platforms, containers practice, and DevOps. 

Our team is focused on helping other organizations adopt and adapt to ServiceNow.

ServiceNow is in the cloud, it's basically remedy in the cloud. ServiceNow doesn't get deployed unless you are a Federal Agency because they have their own data centers. ServiceNow only allows Federal Agencies to have their own instant data Center.

Make sure that you are big enough to afford it. If you have a small IT department, then ServiceNow is not for you. The problem is that you won't be able to afford it. You must be a mature enough and a large enough IT organization to start using it.

It doesn't just do IT things, it does more than that.

Make sure that you configure and not customize.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Microsoft Teams integration is available. Notifications are present within the virtual agent chatbot, integrated with third-party tools. All the portal features have been enabled, including the virtual agent installation.

There is a concern about the integration point of view, particularly the virtual agent. Currently, we are working on integration with Teams and the virtual agent. Now, the chatbot and portal are available. A pop-up message shows the redactions button if you click on anything in the chatbot conversations. This redirects to the portal. It should open, and the virtual agent should be integrated that way.

I have been using ServiceNow as a partner for two years.

There are some bugs in the solution.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

The solution is slow in performance level.

Technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup is simple. It takes only eight hours for each resource because of integration and conversation flow.

From a developer's perspective, understanding the pricing of ServiceNow is crucial. Currently, pricing details are mainly available for account-related matters. However, if developers also have access to this information, it would greatly benefit them.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

I mostly use it for change management.

Change management is most valuable.

The interface can be a bit more intuitive.

It has been in the company for quite a while. It's not new at all. 

I've been using it on and off for about eight or nine years. I work with this solution on almost a daily basis at this point, at least three times a week.

I find it to be very stable.

I'm not in a good position to give a judgment on its scalability, but in terms of its usage, because it is a ticketing system, it is used for all the incidents. Our service desk uses it primarily to issue tickets, requests, changes, and so on. There are about 15 people who use it very regularly for those types of purposes. It is being used extensively.

I never had to get in touch with their technical support.

I wasn't here when it came online.

I would rate it a seven out of 10.

I'm in the public service sector, and it is used for public services. 

In terms of deployment, you normally buy ServiceNow on the cloud. You can also have it on-prem, but they're not very keen on giving you that option. So, more often, it is on the cloud, which is very difficult for my type of clients who are not based in America because ServiceNow Cloud is all on American hyperscalers.

It is important to route a ticket or service request to the right person. It needs to adhere to various standards, and ServiceNow is a very good product in this domain.

It is a very promising product. They have a new release every six months. They're investing quite a lot, and you can do many creative things with the product. If you know how it works, you can have stricter rules in the product.

Their user interface is old-fashioned and outdated, and it can be more friendly for the eye. They can improve the user experience.

We should be able to have different UI frameworks. Currently, they only do Angular, and sometimes, you can do React, but they can be more open-minded in this regard.

They are quite good in case management, but they can work more on case management. They can also adhere more to BPMN 2.0.

You need to know how to use it. You need to do a scope application. If you have everything on the same table, it gets slow. You need to know how the product works, and you need to adhere to the rules. Otherwise, it would become slow.

They have third parties that have competencies. It is not so easy to interact directly with the vendor because they have outsourced to their service partners and integration partners who know what to do. You also have communities taking your questions, but you mostly rely on the implementation partners. Other vendors have also followed the same approach where they produce the platform, and sub-parties produce the service.

It is quite straightforward, but you need an expert. It is a specialized tool.

The product is very good. They are growing a lot, and it seems that for them, it is about what to do first. Everyone wants to talk to them, and they are good, especially in the field of service processes and case management. I like them, but they're difficult to work with because they're very busy.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.

I worked on the CMDB configuration management setup, and then previously I worked on software asset management also and hardware asset management also. I did a little bit on the ITSM side also.

The incident management is great.

We have found change management and CMDB to be very useful. 

The knowledge management is quite good.

The AAR might require further improvements.

There are areas such as technology management that have scope for further improvement. 

Their cloud management is also not that great compared to other products.

There could be some additional capability for discovery. As it matures, it needs to showcase to users what is possible within the solution.  

I have been using it for the last seven years or so, on and off, and especially in the last three, four years, more on a more regular basis. I'm using it almost daily at my job.

The solution is stable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

Sometimes the CMDB, BK table gets slow, however, almost all of the other things are good, at least.

The scalability of the product is very good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

Technical support has mostly been good. We have no complaints in terms of the level of service.

Whether the initial setup is difficult or complex depends on the implementation. We have done multiple implementations, however, it depends on the product's implementation on the consumer end. It can vary from straightforward to complex.

The deployment also is product-specific, customer-specific, et cetera. It depends, for example, on the number of customers, the particular, specific scope, and which product is required, and how many users and devices that they have. All these things come into play and change how long it would take to set everything up.

The size of the team a company might need for deployment and maintenance is product and scope-specific, however, it can vary from one or two people to even maybe five to ten people, depending on which products are in scope, and what is the scope of maintenance requirements.

If the project is for the ITSM, it'll be 18 or 19 managers playing a role, and the rest being the configuration managers with other things. However, it depends on the project.

We're an implementor. We handle the setup for clients. 

I'm a consultant. We are a managed service provider. As part of the implementation, the client usually does look for a cloud for it.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I deducted a mark as sometimes there is a certain level of slowness, however, for the most part, we have been happy with its capabilities. 

We use this solution mostly for ITSM, but we also have customers who use it for customer service management and item discovery.

The features I found most valuable in this solution are usually also found on other platforms like the Visual Task Boards.

For change management, I find the CAB workbench very useful. I haven't seen any other solution that has a CAB workbench or advanced automated solutions for a change advisory board. That's one of the perks of ServiceNow. Other perks include the Visual Task Boards and the Virtual Agent. ServiceNow also has the Workflow Engine which works very well and is very intuitive. Some of the development tools give you a lot of freedom in terms of changing processes. That's what we like.

This solution needs to be improved for global use. Currently, it's very oriented to the processes and needs of the US customer base, like their compliance solution or GRC (Governance, Risk, and Compliance), and not so much for customers from other parts of the world. Some users may like the things that ServiceNow is improving, but those are very oriented to users based in the United States and Europe.

In Latin America which is the geographical region we work in, it's not very useful. Some of the customers are more interested in other solutions. Sometimes they put aside ServiceNow because it is focused on the needs of the customer base in Europe and the US. This is one of the disadvantages I see.

Another disadvantage is the level of maturity that the customer has to have to get value from a solution like ServiceNow. The customer needs to have a great level of maturity. A company that is starting its journey with ITSM wouldn't find ServiceNow very useful, because sometimes there's a considerable amount of code you need to know to be able to implement ServiceNow. This will depend on the complex needs that a customer may have, for the customer to find ServiceNow as a useful solution. Depending on the level of maturity they have, they would need that amount of customization. I don't see the need for coding as a problem. The problem I see is that the level of maturity that the customer needs to have is high.

There's quite a lot of features in ServiceNow. Currently, we haven't had any sort of need that ServiceNow and the features that they already have, don't resolve. There's no feature that I can think of right now that I'd like to be added in the next release.

There are some guidelines that ServiceNow has that automate the implementation, but they're available only for ITSM and ITOM. It would be good if those automated guidelines are also made available for other ServiceNow solutions like customer service management, configuration management, and asset management.

Another area for improvement is the lack of clarity in terms of how this solution is licensed. It is usually very complicated for customers to know how they are being charged for the licenses that they consume. In most of the ServiceNow solutions, this problem is persistent.

There might be some bias because we are ServiceNow partners and we're also Freshworks partners. We're not users. We're partners. We implement both solutions for customers.

We used cloud-based deployment.

We've been working with ServiceNow for quite some time.

I evaluated BMC.

Some of the customers are interested in Acquire when they think of ServiceNow.

My advice to others looking into implementing ServiceNow is for them to really know what the objective of the implementation is: what they're trying to fix and what problem they're trying to solve. They have to be very conscious of these things because if they are not, the solution may not be a good fit. It's going to be too big of a problem to solve. They need to have a high level of maturity to get everything they need from a platform like ServiceNow.

I'm rating this solution a nine out of ten.

I am a customer of ServiceNow. We use the solution for operations and ITSM.

ServiceNow has a user interface that mimics a web-base and is easy on the eyes however, it is too fluid. Currently, we are unable to audit notes. ServiceNow should be more organized and structured so it enables us to classify notes. 

I have been using ServiceNow for two years.

The solution has good stability.

ServiceNow is scalable.

Due to some of the complexities within our organization, the initial deployment was complex. The tool itself is straightforward.

The deployment of ServiceNow was completed in-house.

We compared ServiceNow with Remedy. 

I recommend ServiceNow to commercial or private companies. I would rate this product a 10 out of 10.