JIRA Service Management Reviews

I'm currently using JIRA Service Management for project management, specifically for communication with different tech tools and providing services for our product. It is mainly used within the research and development department, governed by product managers and service managers in operations.

It provides real-time updates to all the stakeholders, which is the best aspect of the service. It offers the opportunity to create customized communication and service tracking, allowing for more precise real-time changes.

JIRA Service Management provides real-time updates to all the stakeholders. It also offers the opportunity to create customized communication and track services, enabling more precise real-time changes and a customized version.

The platform should be more user-friendly. JIRA's user interface needs training to understand and utilize. There is a need to limit the information in one window to avoid overwhelming users with unnecessary data.

I've been working with JIRA Service Management for about two to three months.

I would rate the stability a seven. There should be more governance for permissions and more options for customized access without frequently involving the admin.

I would rate scalability as eight or nine. It supports introducing new features or levels efficiently across our global locations, helping everyone stay informed.

I communicate with technical support monthly, but they provide the same information available online. I would rate them a five.

Neutral

The initial setup is complex. It's rated at a seven. Too much information is presented at once, leaving room for simplifying and customizing views.

I primarily handled the implementation, utilizing available videos and documentation for setup and understanding.

Pricing seems slightly expensive compared to others but offers solutions on the AWS level, which could justify the cost. I would rate it a seven on the expensive side.

New users should consider tools that are not only feature-rich but also easy to use. Many providers offer robust features, so the ease of use should be a deciding factor. I would rate JIRA Service Management a seven overall.

We needed a centralized, user-friendly, and admin-friendly system for our help desk. We had multiple systems and teams that needed to be deployed for this system. For example, we had a development system, a first-line help desk team that was available 24/7, and an escalation process. The first line, second line, and third line might be a local partner or so. We even automated the process for the external partner of our company. So when our first line escalated to the second line of support and the second line couldn't resolve the issue according to the process, it went to the partner. And the partner saw all the history on the tickets. It was a really nice solution.

It has improved our work in a number of ways. First, it has made everything much faster. Before Jira Service Management, it could take weeks to resolve a ticket. But with the notifications and reminders that Jira Service Management provides, we have reduced the time spent on tickets from a couple of weeks to just two to three days.

It has definitely saved us time for really usual stuff, for example, a laptop that doesn't work properly and you require the first-line service desk to address the problem. Previously, it could take up to a week to get it resolved because we didn't have a centralized, automated system for control, monitoring, and reminders, particularly for the first-line managers. Also, there was no escalation process in place. We were using a basic, free, open system without any escalation features, and we received notifications through email, but those were only generated upon ticket creation.

There is room for improvement in support. We had one or two cases of not really nice responses from the partner.

So, there is room for improvement in terms of response time.

In the end of 2021, I implemented a Jira help desk solution in an aviation company.

I worked with a user and a project manager who implemented this solution for about a year. We had a project, then about a year of usage only as a user.

I used it last seven months ago because then I switched jobs. And before that, if we are talking about Jira Service Management, it was implemented at the end of 2021. So it was, like, four months of projects. 

It was really easy to set up, and it was really clear for the help desk managers and for the end-users to set the workflow and the business process of the tickets for the help desk. Like, from the box, we used the box solution. It was perfect. I used it six months ago.

It is a stable solution. It is an online solution so it is easy to maintain. 

In terms of scalability, Jira covered all our demands. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. 

We didn't use all the possible settings for the solution, but it still scaled well to our 1200 users. We didn't have any stability problems with Jira, so it gets a ten out of ten from me.

We had some problems with our partner's tech support.

Neutral

I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one being difficult and ten being easy to set up. It took a bit longer than we planned because of the partner.

I had a project manager, a business analyst, and four other people on my team for deploying and maintaining the solution. We also had the head of support and the first-line support manager who tested everything for us.

Overall, the project took about four months, but that included deploying all the processes, levels of escalation, and other things. So it was super easy.

It wasn't the cheapest solution out there. It could have been a bit cheaper, but the user experience and overall capabilities of Jira make it worth the price.

We have another team working on those tools, for example, Trellix and Symantec Data Loss Prevention. We have a range of information solutions used in an ongoing project, and it's only in the planning and feasibility stage for DLP. So, I have worked with a bunch of them.

I would definitely recommend Jira. It's a great solution, but like any other IT tool, it's important to have well-defined processes in place before you implement it. If your processes are not well-defined, Jira won't be able to help you as much.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. It was a great experience for both our first-line help desk managers and our end users. The interface is super easy to use, and the analytics features are really helpful. We were also able to deploy Symantec Data Protection 2 in Jira, which was a great addition.

We use the product for our procurement processes and our service desk. We use it for our different teams working on the development side for smaller projects, as well as capital planning.

We have the solution deployed on-prem and on the cloud. We have only one team on the cloud and about 35 teams working on-prem.

In Jira Service Management, the most beneficial features are process improvement, workflows, and escalations.

Jira Service Management should be more user-friendly, like other tools. We configure different projects on these tools, so it's okay for us, but Jira could be a little more simplified for clients. Similarly, there should be licenses for frequent and infrequent users.

I have used Jira Service Management for four to six years.

The solution is quite stable. With 30 teams on the solution, there must be more than 30 projects with multiple requests coming in, but two people are enough to handle Jira. I rate the solution's stability an eight or a nine out of ten.

We have about 1,800 employees in our organization, with more than 30 teams working on Jira. The users are all from procurement teams, finance teams, the capital planning team, the service desk, the development team, the networking team, the data center team, and the operations team as well. We are delivering tickets to our operations team. Everyone is using Jira right now. I rate the scalability of the solution a seven to eight out of ten.

The initial setup is very easy. Initial deployment wouldn't take more than a week because it's not a big deal. The configuration and other tasks will definitely take some time due to discussions with teams and project configuration. One person is enough for deployment. We have two people providing support for Jira.

I rate the pricing a ten out of ten because it is very highly priced. We have paid $20,000 recently for a one-year license for our on-prem server.

We have also procured ServiceNow. Other tools like ServiceNow and monday.com provide simplified user interfaces.

We have started moving into cloud deployment because Jira has discontinued the support for the on-prem servers. Moreover, we are moving to the cloud to reduce the cost. There are many users who are licensed for our on-prem server, but they are not using it. We have 1,800 employees, but out of 1,800, there are 1,000 employees using Jira on a daily basis. We are paying the cost per user. There should be licenses for frequent and infrequent users. For example, my manager logged in once in one quarter or after two months or one month, and we are paying $20 per user.

If they want to save money and have the ability to make workflows by themselves, they can use it for startup companies. Startup companies should instantly go to Jira because it can help them in all departments. They won't need to buy different software for different departments, so it's better to go for Jira and make workflows for each department, which will all be using the same software. That way, they can interconnect within the departments.

I rate Jira Service Management a seven out of ten.

On a daily basis, we're working on migration activity. Apart from the migration activity, we're working with the modifications and workflows for particular people who need to approve activities - those who are doing user management and customization. We are doing some scripts on the create screen as well. Whenever there is an approval, it may require setting some features that hide things automatically or some features that need to be filled automatically. We have Lambda in the AWS. In Lambda functions, all the fields in JSON format need to be triggered in Jira. 

I like Scriprunner. Whatever is not possible, we can make it possible through Scriptrunner. We can customize the scripts, et cetera.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

While I really like Scriptrunner, there are behaviors we don't have in the cloud. In the cloud version, we need to do scripts and evaluators only. We don't have behaviors in the cloud. They need to do some updates in the cloud in future releases.

For example, we have ten custom fields in the data center create screen. If you select the first custom field, it will drop-down automatically the following nine custom fields that need to be changed. Any unwanted fields need to be hidden automatically. When we use the behavior, it is in the data center server version. However, working on the cloud version, we don't have that behavior feature in Scriptrunner. We must go with the validators if we need to write any scripts in the cloud. 

Basically, the cloud and the server aren't identical. They work in slightly different ways and the new cloud isn't the same as the server.

I'd like to update the dashboard so that more features are available. 

I've been using the solution for the last five years. 

The stability is okay. We do get bugs. However, we can figure it out. 

The solution is scalable. You can add users. 

We have a license for 10,000 users. However, only 8,000 people are using it. If users are not using it for 15 days, we'll remove them.

I work on technical support. We have low priority, medium priority, hybrid, and critical tickets. The simple tickets we'll assign to junior-level people if we have any. If the bandwidth is less, then we'll take the tickets. If bandwidth is more, then we'll assign the tickets to the lower-level people. However, in general, we deal with support queries. 

I have years of experience with Jira and have a good level of knowledge. 

Positive

We had ticketing systems from ServiceNow and YouTrack. Compared to Jira, the tools are not very good. For example, if you take the workflow only in the Jira, the workflow will be simple. However, with the other tools, workflows can be a bit complex. They need to write some Java code, for example. There is some complexity. They are also not that economical compared to Jira in terms of pricing. 

It is not complicated to set up. It's pretty straightforward. I can set everything up in about two hours. However, if any customization is needed in the database, it will take some time. It depends on the customization and the client as well. 

Some clients don't want any customized as well. They want only a simple setup. What we'll do is we'll install a server. We'll do the project's setup, explain everything, and show the server customer the base we have. Based on the blueprints, we'll create data servers, et cetera, and they'll use the simple workflow.

Going forward, they'll learn how to use Jira by doing. Once they know Jira, they'll ask for the customization part. 

We can handle the initial setup.

It is worth the money; however, if a company has budget complications, they should start with a standard version. 

The price of Jira is very good. 

We have a standard basic version. We also have premium plans we have in Jira. The cost depends on the plan. It also depends on the number of users and plugins. 

A basic plan will charge $10 per user. A more premium plan will charge $18 per user.

We are Atlassian partners.

We have a cloud version, and we have a data center as well. In the cloud, we are doing migration activities. In the coming next two years, when it comes to the server, there is no support and therefore, we're planning to completely move to migrate to the cloud.

If you are using this software for the first time, I would suggest the use of the cloud instead of a data center server. I prefer to use the cloud due to the fact that, in the coming two years, the server won't have that much support. Everyone is moving to the cloud and it's developing daily. The automation is inbuilt in the cloud compared to the server as well. Of course, for automation, you will have to pay.

We do find the cloud more secure and there are updates happening day by day. It's becoming more robust.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. If they improved their API integrations, I would rate it higher. 

I am primarily using Jira Service Management for sprint management, estimations, planning, pre-planning, and conducting all the sprint ceremonies with user stories and estimations.

It's commonly used, so we don't need to teach anyone. Any new member that joins knows Jira Service Management.

Everyone knows how to use it, so there's no need to teach new members. It's as widely recognized as word processors.

Jira Service Management could improve by offering more control similar to Monday.com, such as easier automations, file addition, and sharing with different people.

I used it a lot before stopping three months ago.

We never faced any latency or stability issues. My team had never more than six or seven people, and it was stable for our needs.

I had to use support management tasks regarding the API. They didn't help with my issue because it was something that was not supported.

Negative

I used NetSuite and considered monday.com to be more beneficial.

It returned value, but I'm not sure if it completely covered the investment. It's useful.

Jira Service Management is expensive and not worth the money compared to monday.com.

I used NetSuite and evaluated monday.com, which has more control and features I find beneficial.

I rate Jira Service Management a six out of ten. I used monday.com due to its ability to provide more control, automations, and better file management.

Jira Service Management was a plugin and was not a completely different tool. Earlier, it was just a plugin for regulation. Later, they introduced it as a different tool. Earlier it was known as Jira Service Desk, and now they introduce it as Jira Service Management, a different tool.

If you have a product-based organization, then people used to use it for interacting with the client and getting the requests from the client. If it's internal, there could be a Help desk, IT service desk, or finance service desk, wherever you have to exchange the request between agents and the user base. You have to pay the license only for the agents, not all users. People can create their tickets free of cost. There, you get the portal, and any number of users can create their tickets, and only agents need a license to resolve their tickets and work on their tickets.

Earlier, people used to communicate using email. For a single complaint or for any single task, you are sending so much mail in a chain. If you have to search for any single item in that chain, you go into the first email to figure out where it started, how it started, what the resolution was, and what the discussion was. If you are using Jira Service Management, you can search for the tickets within seconds, and you get the whole history of that issue. It's much easier. There's more clarity.

The most valuable feature they offer is not to build in cost for every user. It's free of cost for your clients. It's free of cost for your internal users. Only, you have to pay the license for people who are going to work on it. If I take the example of an HR Help Desk, if it's an organization of 10,000 people, then 9950 people can log tickets free of cost, and only 50 people need a license to resolve their ticket, if it's a team of 50 people in HR.

The solution is stable.

It scales well. 

Feature-wise, they are improving day by day. I cannot ask for any single feature. We have to worry about how they are increasing their price. Atlassian will increase the price by 5% for most of the tools. It's getting expensive. 

The deployment can be a bit complex, especially for those who are not technical. 

I've been using the solution for seven years. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

You can scale the solution whether it is deployed to the cloud or the data center. 

While we might have up to 5,200 people using the solution, we do not require that many licenses, as only those dealing with the tickets are required to be licensed. 

We're using the product quite extensively.

Technical support has been helpful. I have found some bugs in the past, and they did a good job in helping us deal with them.

I am aware of ServiceNow as well. The UI is not as user-friendly, and it costs more. 

I cannot say it's too easy to set up. It is moderate for a technical user, and for a non-technical user, it will be a bit difficult. There are many things you have to configure. You have to configure the permissions and notifications for customers and agents differently. You have to set up the portal and many more things. 

The deployment will not take too long if it's on the cloud. The infrastructure is already ready for you. Since the server is closed, you only have the option of the data center if it's a data center. However, if you are going to deploy it in a data center, then obviously, it'll take more time.

You only need one person if you are deploying on a cloud and two or three people if you are deploying on a data center. If you are deploying on Linux, you may need someone well-versed in Linux. The cloud is an easy, fast deployment as you can do it in a few clicks. The data center takes more people and time. 

You cannot do it own. There are requirements the IT team is used to manage various items, including SSL licensing certificates. You have to get SSL certificates from them. The infrastructure is usually managed by IT, and you must host your instance there, so you need help from them. The implementation is usually a combination of two teams, both IT and non-IT.

We have witnessed an ROI. The solution has paid for itself.

You can choose either monthly or yearly licensing. The cost has recently increased. It might be around $20 to $25 per user license. 

You have three types of plans: standard, basic, and premium. If you need to configure it more, you have to use some plugins from the Atlassian Marketplace. For those, you have to pay whatever they may cost.

I'm a customer and end-user.

We use a few Jira tools across the organization. 

It is one of the best tools in the market right now. If you are looking for any service management tool, then you have to go for it. It's easy to maintain and easy to use. The user interface is very good. 

If you are in a client-based organization, your client will find it more useful as you can integrate with Confluence, and then you can deflect the users to the knowledge parts. You can create your own knowledge information on Confluence, and, without creating tickets, you can redirect your client or user to Confluence.

From there, they can get the information they need. It saves a lot of time for the IT team and empowers the users to do things by themselves. They do not have to follow up. They do not have to create a ticket.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We are not using the systems we have at Jira, however, we are using the Jira environment of a client known as Electrify America. We are serving Electrify America and using their environment for managing tickets.

Apart from ticket management and workflow, the Kanban board is one of the helpful tools in Jira.

There should be some AI integrations now as AI is in the picture. One should have some risk analysis done and auto code analysis done on the ticket.

I have been working with Jira Service Management for almost three years now.

There are not really any issues. It is pretty much easier to use.

Scalability is good. I can rate it as eight out of ten.

My leads have reached out to customer support.

Positive

I have used ServiceNow. It depends on the clients. Some clients use ServiceNow, so we have to use it.

I have never dealt with the initial setup as it is done by the client side.

My lead handles the deployment.

I have had experience with ServiceNow.

Users should use the end-to-end tools related to project management. It is very useful in project management.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use Jira Service Management to open support tickets, follow up on those tickets, and monitor the work log. We also perform some report filtering to follow up on outstanding issues. We utilize Jira Service Management's features to track the status and use customized workflows for incident management.

Jira Service Management allows us to customize dashboards to retrieve real-time data. By defining filters based on different customer types and service types, we can monitor and manage incidents effectively. This high level of customization aids in decision-making and increases visibility in tracking issues.

We have found the issue type feature particularly valuable, as it provides an out-of-the-box solution that aligns with our needs. We also appreciate the ability to customize the status workflow, surface type, and associated features, offering us high flexibility and visibility.

There is room for improvement in the user interface and the queues. Currently, the queues, which list all issues, do not allow resizing of columns and appear primitive compared to filters. Enhancing the queue interface would align it more closely with the sophisticated filter reports.

We have been using Jira Service Management for one year.

Jira Service Management's stability is very high. We have not experienced any downtime, which ensures uninterrupted operations. The performance is excellent, contributing significantly to our IT operations.

The solution is highly scalable, allowing customization and usage across different platforms, such as desktop and mobile. We haven't yet explored all features, such as allowing users to submit their tickets, so there is plenty of room for scalability in the future.

The customer service and support provided by Jira Service Management are excellent. During my setup, I encountered difficulties, and the support team responded very fast and was very helpful in resolving my inquiries.

Positive

Previously, we did not use any different solution for these use cases.

The initial setup of Jira Service Management is rated a five. There is a learning curve that needs significant time investment to understand and configure the system. However, once the platform is understood, usage and configuration become much more straightforward.

I handled the deployment process myself. Our team of six users, including myself, required involvement during the setup phase.

Jira Service Management offers high ROI due to its subscription basis and cost-effectiveness. It does not require installing a server, as it is cloud-based, further enhancing its value.

The pricing for Jira Service Management is reasonable and not expensive. It feels fair because there are opportunities for discounts through resellers.

We did not evaluate other solutions because the decision to use Jira Service Management was made by my boss.

The most time-consuming part of the setup process is learning how to customize workflows. It is crucial to thoroughly read and understand all documentation and materials provided, which significantly aids in setting up and customizing the platform.