JIRA Service Management Reviews

Our product lifecycle management is done in JIRA Service Management. All the daily BAU tasks are tracked in JIRA Service Management on the Sprint device.

Our scrum team may be able to give more details, but the visibility features are great. It is user-friendly and fast, and we can relate the tasks.

There could be more optimization, and the pricing could be better too.

I joined the company three years ago, and we've been using it since then. It is a cloud-based solution.

The stability is good.

It is a SaaS service, so it is scalable. We have 5000 users using JIRA Service Management, and we plan to increase the number of users. However, we require some basic staff, mainly managers, for maintenance.

We have not required technical support.

We previously used ITAM, BMC Remedy and some other tools, and JIRA Service Management is comparatively better. Integration is also easy.

I am unaware of the initial setup, but it requires a signup and a purchase plan.

I am not aware of the licensing costs.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten and recommend it to others.

We use JIRA Service Management for internal product development. We use it as a ticketing tool, for issues and bugs, for user storage, etc.

I like the precise ticket management capabilities. JIRA Service Management is easy to use as well.

I think the performance can be better.

We've been using it for six months. It is deployed on the cloud.

It's pretty stable.

It's very scalable. We currently have four to five staff using this solution.

My experience with JIRA's technical support has been fine. I'd give them a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward.

I advise you to go for it. JIRA Service Management is user-friendly and can help you achieve what you want to achieve. 

We are using Jira Service Desk for supporting both internal and external clients. 

One of the best features is that I can share tickets with team members, at which point any team member is able to pick one up and work on it. 

I began using Jira Service Desk when I joined the company about two and a half years ago, although the rest of the company has been using it for longer than that.

We have had a problem with stability in the past, although it has been resolved.

I have contacted technical support about different features and I find that they don't address issues as fast as they should.

The pricing is very competitive and I think that it is okay.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use this product to log issues that require investigation or solutions.

It allows tracking and communications to be sure issues are resolved. This helps us remain on task and keeps clients happy.

The product is valuable for logging and tracking issues. We can use it on multiple platforms and make it accessible to other people in other streams.

The product could be improved by integrating better with mobile numbers. For example, creating a WhatsApp platform would extend the solution and make it more useful. For now, when the issues are logged here, requests and responses go through the email server. The additional opportunities for connectivity would make it possible for quicker responses and more immediacy. With Micro Focus, one of the tools we used, we were able to build in a script that would send a response through WhatsApp instead of sending emails to the project group. JIRA would be better if that type of thing were possible, or even better if the solution was actually built into the product instead of having to use another service.

I think if JIRA can get that one right, it will be more desirable in the marketplace in general.

More interactive reporting would also be helpful.

We find that this is an excellent tool and it is very stable.

JIRA is an excellent tool. We still have room to improve how we use it. It can cater to multiple needs and purposes which enhances its demand. The fact that we can use it for multiple tasks alone makes it scalable. It's very good at what it does.

We have more than ten people currently using it. Most of them are testing consultants and developers. We also have project managers using it.

For deployment and maintenance, it may take only one to three guys. It depends on the complexity of what you are planning to do with it, so it will vary from case to case. There's no absolute answer to how many people will need to be involved.

Our deployment of the project is changing and growing on an on-going basis. It is used extensively and consistently and seems to be more useful as we explore what it can do.

I won't lie and say they are good because I am not the one who is in contact with support when something goes wrong. The development server had a problem that they solved, but the technical guys on the projects are the ones who would know about that. I haven't heard any complaints about support.

We previously used the defect module for Micro Focus ALM.

In most cases, we don't have to set it up from scratch. The stakeholders usually already have it installed. The amount of time it takes for deployment depends on the complexity of what a client needs.

We used an in-house guy for the implementation.

We have seen a return on investment in that it makes us more efficient and that in turn will make our clients happier.

I do not have a good idea of the costs as that is not my department, but it is a valuable solution for handling and tracking multiple projects.

We did not really evaluate other products when making the switch to JIRA. It seemed to be an intuitive choice.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate this solution as an eight. It is a good solution and it helps to boost productivity.

The basic configuration and the basic abilities provided are the most valuable aspects of the solution.

Usability needs improvement. To configure it, you need to be well versed in JIRA administration. It's not very intuitive.

The stability of the solution is okay.

The potential to scale the solution depends on what the organization aims to do but it's good.

The solution offers lots of information on the website to assist with technical queries. There are also many community sites to help you troubleshoot any problems.

The usual setup is fine but to configure anything that is out of the box, you really need to understand the abilities of the solution.

Deployment takes about two hours.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd rate it higher, but it is expensive and very hard to customize.

We use this product for our IT service desks. We are resellers and I'm head of corporate projects.

I think it's easy to use and user-friendly. 

The documentation needs improving because we have a lot of issues trying to find specific procedures. I'd also like to see an improvement with the inside discovery of assets.

I've been using this solution for four years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

Technical support is not the best and could definitely be improved. 

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. Each project is different in terms of the number of people required to deploy. Some only require one person but others might need two or three consultants to assist the client with implementation and configuration. 

This solution is good but it's not the best. Sometimes if you pay a bit more there's less pain. 

I rate this solution seven out of 10. 

Service Desk and implementing typical ITIL processes (change, incident, problem, support management, etc.).

• Allowing customized processes for our service contracts.
• Reporting and easy export to Excel spreadsheets, or similar.

• Code available
• Emails for groups
• Usability 
• Bang for the buck (in small and mid-size organizations)

• SaaS version for large organizations (more than 2000 users) is not available.
• Include a split configuration in a layer part to allow cloud services to have almost full admin rights in SaaS.