JIRA Service Management Reviews

I mainly use JSM to pick solutions for customers, for email to case, and for self-service tickets.

JSM's best feature is the integration with other Jira products.

JSM's ability to handle large volumes of emails isn't great. Its SLA management is also very primitive and should be made more robust. In the next release, JSM should include the ability to send single emails to large enterprise organizations rather than each individual receiving a separate message. 

I've been using JIRA Service Management (JSM) for three years.

The cloud version is stable.

JSM's cloud version is scalable, but you need to be cautious with the on-prem version since you will be onboarding thousands of additional customers to support.

I previously used Salesforce Service Cloud and BCM software.

The initial setup is straightforward, but the software doesn't give any help, so you have to use third-party tools like script and SLA management tools.

JSM's pricing is one of the best, starting at around $10 per user, per month, with volume discounts available.

I advise anybody looking into JSM to ensure they get their workflows right and plan strategically about how they want to integrate their standard product with JSM. They should also stay away from the on-prem version. I would give JSM a rating of seven out of ten.

We use it primarily for test case management and raising bugs. It is a centralized tool that we use to track test cases, integrate with automation, and manage bug fixing.

The most valuable feature of Jira is that it is free of cost, which is a significant advantage. Bug raising is easy, and integration with other tools is straightforward. 

The centralized feature allows us to track test cases and integrate with automation and bug fixing.

We faced challenges with integration for different frameworks like TestComplete. The support we received was not fully provided at that time. The free version of Jira does not have many features. AI features for integration, test case scheduling, and requirement management could be enhanced.

We have been using it for two to three years.

In the initial period, only 25 team members were using it, and it worked for us without requiring changes.

The support provided at that time was not fully sufficient.

We used Team Foundation Server, now known as DevOps, after we stopped using Jira due to the availability of licenses and the needs of our clients.

We used Jira's free version for some time, and we used it as an offline service without communicating with the Jira team regarding the license.

I'd rate the solution six 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. 

We upload the tasks for the team, working with them, and they know the status of the tasks.

It helps with time management and team management of the new tasks.

The status of the tasks and the ability to assign any task to any person are valuable features.

It should be easier to log in. When I first tried to log into Jira, I faced issues accessing my company account.

I've been working with Jira Service Management for the same duration as Wazoo, which is about three months.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

All of the teams in the company love Jira. 

I didn’t need to call customer support.

Positive

I didn't work with other log management tools before, but I know some information about platforms like Splunk, IBM QRadar, and others.

For Jira, the setup is good. It is an eight out of ten.

I was not involved in the implementation.

I did research about platforms like LogRhythm, Splunk, and IBM QRadar.

I recommend Jira Service Management. It helps with time management and team management of the new tasks.

I would rate it a 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.

We use JIRA for user support, specifically first-level user support. 

Additionally, we use it to plan project steps. With the Carbon dashboard, it is possible to break the project into multiple steps. You can review what is done, what is set to be done, and what has been completed during the predefined time slots. For ITSM processes, we primarily use it for access processes. 

We also utilize its automation capabilities, such as automatically creating JIRA tickets from monitoring tools during batch execution errors.

JIRA allows us to easily monitor what the team is doing and which subjects team members are working on. The dashboard feature enables us to see task statuses and facilitates task management through drag-and-drop functionality. This has improved our productivity by making it easier to track tasks and team activities.

The most valuable feature compared to JPS is that JIRA is focused on user support and project management. It is easy to communicate with end users through the application, and for specific tasks, it's possible to break them into smaller tasks and link them together. Features like the dashboard and drag-and-drop functionality for updating task statuses make it user-friendly. 

The ability to create a Deep Bucket branch or link tasks from JIRA to another JIRA is also beneficial. Automation capabilities allow for automatic ticket creation using monitoring tools.

It would be beneficial if we could turn comments into subtasks or other JIRA tickets directly. If this feature could be added, it would enhance the user experience.

I have been working with JIRA and ServiceNow for the past three years.

In our environment, JIRA is very stable. We have different JIRA instances for testing, and with our architecture, the application remains stable except during major changes or updates. Daily operations are smooth and fluent.

As an end user, I find it difficult to comment on scalability. However, our dedicated deployment team manages the architectural aspects to ensure scalability.

I have not had any interaction with JIRA's technical support, so I cannot comment on their customer service.

Positive

Previously, I worked with GLPI for about six years before switching. I stopped using GLPI because I changed jobs and moved to a position that uses JIRA and ServiceNow.

From my point of view, as an end user, the initial setup was slightly challenging due to the new user interface compared to GLPI. However, over time, it became more user-friendly, and I discovered many good options.

A dedicated team focuses on maintaining the JIRA infrastructure. When new options are needed, they evaluate and include them, making the experience better for end users.

We have seen improvements in productivity since it is easier to understand team activities and task statuses through the JIRA dashboard. Comparing task management features, JIRA significantly outperforms GLPI.

I do not have information about the pricing or licensing cost of JIRA. The last time I checked, there was a cloud version available for subscription.

For a small enterprise or team, GLPI may be a suitable option due to its free version. However, for a larger, more stable, and highly improved solution, I would recommend JIRA. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

JIRA Service Management was used strictly for our client's IT services in my company. Nowadays, the tool caters to business needs, HR, and administrative purposes, including the payroll aspect of my company's clients. The application has taken a different turn by allowing for managing certain relevant business needs as well.

In recent scenarios, JIRA Service Management has helped my company's clients on the automation front, including onboarding or offboarding employees. The product has multiple use cases with multiple departments, one area that gets highly utilized. The tool also helps convert an incident into a change or problem and then trace and track activities with the tool, which is highly leveraged. Integration of JSM with JIRA software on change and problem management to drive the release, and looking at the release on the DevOps chart, are some use cases by businesses.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its SLA, which everybody wants when it comes to a service-based offering. The queues in JIRA Service Management play a vital role in allowing its users to define the issue types, further classify them into queues, and then carry on.

In-built chat is missing in JIRA Service Management. To compensate for the missing in-built chat, we have been trying to gain leverage with Slack or Microsoft Teams at the moment since it is important to me who stands between the customer and the agent. The aforementioned area needs improvement because it is a very vital area. Suppose one can get on to something in JIRA Service Management that allows for communication. In that case, it is easier to solve a problem rather than communicate with JIRA through comments which will go back and forth.

In short, an in-built chat option will be good for the solution.

I have been using JIRA Service Management for over six years.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight to nine on a scale of one to ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight to nine on a scale of one to ten.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

I used to previously work with Bitbucket.

I rate the initial setup phase of JIRA Service Management a six out of ten.

The solution is deployed majorly on the cloud.

The time taken to deploy JIRA Service Management depends on multiple factors. It can range from a week to a month, depending upon what kind of customization and plug-in integrations are required.

JIRA Service Management's pricing is pretty decent compared to competitors. I rate the pricing an eight to nine on a scale of one to ten.

To those planning to use it, I would say that if they have a larger customer base, which may cause them to incur some licensing costs, then that is the area where they should look at JSM as a candidate. If some want to automate their internal processes, which could be operational, business-centric, or technical operation, they can use JSM. People who can look at JSM as a candidate are those who have a little bit of asset requirement where they want to manage the instance and opt for the trace and track functionality to find out what exactly is happening and who is honing what in general.

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

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.