JIRA Service Management Reviews

Optimizing the IT and support departments to handle tickets without "going under" in the amount of work that they are doing by organizing the most important and urgent things first.

JIRA SD releases pressure on the IT department and generates statistics. It also makes the department more transparent and helps the employees. JIRA SD also helps for much better feedback on the work being done. All colleagues can see what is happening. When the customer calls, everybody can see what is happening and the feedback via email when a ticket is modified makes sure the customer is informed and does not start calling. This releases pressure too.

Transparency of the system helps both internal and external persons involved. Statistics allow us to deploy resources where needed. It shows problem zones and where more capacity is needed or more training. JIRA SD also makes employees better as it helps them to feel more important when it comes to customer satisfaction.

In general, JIRA has no relation to customers or financials. Therefore, marketplace add-ons are needed to make it work for customer-facing systems.

No, it is running very stable, but only when you have a test system to try out things. As it is designed for developers, it is hard to convince developers to tamper with the production system.

Yes, a plain vanilla installation will only last for less than 100 users. Handling more requires better hardware and configurations.

Atlassian only has a very expensive enterprise support contract (>$100K) or email/JIRA-Ticket support. That support is included when you buy the license. After a year, you only pay for this support and not the license anymore. It is 50% of the new license costs and called a "renewal".

I would suggest to always buy licenses through an Atlassian partner, so you can also rely on their expertise. This way you have two support contacts and does not cost you anything more, such a partner will also come to the location, which Atlassian will never do (Atlassian only does email (JIRA-Ticket support). Phone calls to Atlassian will always be sales support advising to file a JIRA support ticket. Tech support is mostly concentrated in Australia, so there is always a time zone delay for the tickets you raise.

We previously used CRM systems, like Vtiger CRM and SugarCRM. These are not intended for a development department.

Setup (install) is straightforward, but needs tweaking when you are a heavy user.

Setup of the projects is made easier, but there is a lot more you can do beyond initial setup. The automations will really help the company by delegating work the way your company operates.

We implemented with the aid of the vendor and external consultants.

It is hard to calculate costs you do not make.

It is also hard to calculate growing efficiency. 

I can see that JIRA avoids chaos and makes the whole company work more efficient as all feature requests and internal/external requests are all visible in the JIRA tickets and the Confluence wiki system.

It made money the first year already.

Costs are about $50 per user per year. JIRA is sold in user tiers of 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, 2000, 10,000, and unlimited users. It is bad when you have 51 users then the price is based on that 100 user tier. Users at 100 will be the most cost effective. 

JIRA Service Desk has different pricing as it is based on agents. On average, the price is about $300 per agent.

Do not forget to calculate add-on costs. These cost a percentage of the JIRA purchasing costs and are based on the number of JIRA users.

Not really, as it was much better than Bugzilla which we used before.

Buying a software solution is only a half part of the solution (or even less). You need to optimize usage of the software by hiring professionals who will help you to make the most of the software, especially in the beginning. 

Repeat hiring of external consultancy every couple of years as knowledge fades out (people get different tasks to do). You should optimize your software infrastructure and re-evaluate it every three to four years to make optimal use of your infrastructure as the outside world changes very fast. Requirements also change.

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.

Currently, I'm not working with an organization that is using Jira, but my previous clients have used it. The last client had 15,000 licensed users, of which about 7,000 or 8,000 were active. I'm not sure how many of those were using it on a daily basis, but I'm guessing it was about a third.

Jira gets the basics right in terms of the Product Backlog and a Scrum Board that Scrum Teams can use to manage Sprint Backlogs.

The queries are weak and lack advanced functionality. You can do rudimentary queries, but you can't aggregate. You can't filter a lot of things that would be useful, so you need to use plugins to write writing advanced queries. I run into problems when working with different organizations because they always have restrictions on what kind of plugins they allow.

I have been using Jira for around 14 years, and Jira Service Management specifically for about half a year.

Jira is fairly stable.

The user interface becomes sluggish when there are many items in the database, especially large Product Backlogs. I've had page-load times of more than 30 seconds on modern clients. That's just unacceptable. A lot of things are processed through the user interface when it might be smarter to process them through the backend. It tends to be quite slow because it's a JavaScript user interface with a lot of dynamic processing, and a lot of it is run sequentially, single-threaded. For this reason, Jira especially benefits from modern browsers with a fast JavaScript engine, such as Chrome or Edge, and of CPUs specifically optimized for dynamic website processing, such as the Apple M series.

Atlassian support is excellent. I contacted support once directly because I was using a free license on a pet project, and I had to log in again, or they would deactivate my account. I logged in to prevent that from happening, but it still was deactivated, so I contacted them. They took care of it. 

Most of my work is with internal IT departments who administer Jira as an on-premise installation. They provide internal support to users, and my invoke Atlassian as a second level on their behalf. The on-premise installations often have lousy support. They tend to be over-bureaucratized IT departments that don't care much about user needs. It's just the kind of environment that brings that out.

I rate Jira 10 out of 10 for ease of setup. The setup is handled centrally by an administrator. I also use the Atlassian software as a service, so the setup is negligible. It's ready to go out of the box, unless by all means you want to host it yourself.

We never calculated the return on investment. Jira is useful when your teams are virtual and distributed across several sites or when there are many items, especially when they need to be tracked for compliance reasons. Software like this is always useful in those cases. It may be less valuable if everyone is in the same place and there are only few larger items to handle, in an environment that gives more leeway in terms of compliance.

The license is based on the number of users. Jira gets costly when scaling up to high numbers of users. At a certain point, it might be more cost-effective to create a custom solution or use something else. 

I rate Jira Service Management seven out of 10. The basics are good, but I'd like to see improvements in user-interface performance and scalability. Querying functionality is also limited. It would be nice if Jira allowed more advanced queries. The user interface doesn't lend itself to working concurrently, with multiple users having a conversation and using the system concurrently. Those are areas for improvement. I would rate it a 10 if it had those. But it does not.

Before deploying Jira, I recommend researching the product to see if it meets your needs. Jira fits a very wide range of needs. But there are a few situations where it is not optimal, or needs to be used in an augmented way. For example, it shouldn't be used to support Scrum events directly, because the user interface doesn't lend itself to working concurrently. You need to update frequently to see changes made by others, and actions are generally sequential. If I need a solution, e.g., for a Daily Scrum, I'd much rather use something like Mural or Miro, and then have it interface with Jira. While Jira can ultimately still be used in these scenarios, as the backend, it benefits from some kind of digital whiteboard on the UI end that allows people to work concurrently with it.

The SLA, speed, the comments from the agents' side, and the dashboard for agents are the most valuable features. 

From the customer side, it's not friendly used compared to other competitors, like ServiceNow or BMC. It's also not fully ITSM management if you compare it with ServiceNow or BMC. They have a full model of ITSM. In BMC they have TrueSight, they have Discovery, which helps IT to discover IT equipment with a serial number, with the specs, capacity of the server. It will give them a view of what's happening if you want to manage requests for change or incidents or planned maintenance. That is available in BMC. They can put a timeframe for maintenance, whenever you want to raise issues, it will tell you that there is client maintenance. And it prevents you from creating issues. This kind of automation is missing from Jira.

Maybe I could find it if I added add-ons or patch in add-ons. Jira cannot compete with what is developed now in ServiceNow and BMC. They are focusing on having a full set of ITSM and a full set of ITOM, which is needed to enhance a lot in Jira. 

There are improvements in every release. They don't look at competitors. They focus more on enhancing bugs or enhancing the features that they have, to fix the bugs that they have, to listen to the users' recommendations. The other competitors are looking to enhance, to change entire the platform to make it reliable, or to make it also near for the growth of the company expectation. The IT team is looking for more automation, more link with systems. How they can, for example, prevent issues from happening. 

We want people to not slow down with the tickets. We want people to have the issue solved automatically. I know that there are add-ons, but always does not fit or is not always in the proper way that we are looking for. 

I have been using this solution for seven years. 

People are looking for more stability and reliability in the system, which is improved in every release, which is good. It's always improving. I feel the difference from the day I moved to version seven and today. It's become faster and they don't have issues with the slowness anymore.

Their response is good. I don't open a lot of tickets with Atlassian. I have a contract with my vendor, who is a partner of Atlassian. My contract with him is not to solve issues, it's more to have more help in scripting or in developing a small script to help me do something which cannot be done directly from Jira. Within the full year, maybe one ticket or two tickets are raised with Atlassian. 

I did the migration from version five to seven. I have a good idea about the flows and the workflow, the customization inside the scheme, and things. Within three or four months, we migrated everything to the new platform. The beauty of Jira, because it's simple, even the workflow is easy to understand. 

It's easy to use.

Compared with other vendors, pricing is okay. But they increase the price every year which gets me in trouble with finance. I have to convince them why I have to pay these extra amounts which are supposed to stay the same. 

I know it's not linked to Atlassian always, because also the other partner was giving us the price directly. 

I would rate Jira an eight out of ten. 

I would like for them to have automation to change the portal, it's still limited. It's not user-friendly compared with other vendors. 

I recommend would, of course, recommend Jira. It depends on the users. When we started, it was good for us but now that the company is growing and we have a lot of applications, a lot of servers, a lot of complexity, and a lot of links between application services, it's not perfect for us. Our infrastructure has also become huge. We have cloud, hybrid, and on-prem. Sometimes we face an issue, but we spend hours understanding where exactly. It can be small things, but no only can understand where exactly. So that's why we are looking for something that can help with this, to prevent us from raising issues, and to find a solution.

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.

We use Jira to track support incidents, which take a different route than incidents that occur within the project. The workflow has been configured so that tickets raised in Service Management are prioritized based on severity and the SLAs. After that, it gets assigned to the owners. We use it mainly for production issues.

We have around 40 users. Some are business IT, but members of the operations and BAU teams also use it. A few of the higher-level management use it, too. 

Jira lets us customize the workflow to meet our requirements. The email and alert features are also handy.

We have tried exporting some of the test cases into Jira from Excel. The interface for that isn't very user-friendly. 

We're a new company, so we have been using Jira for three-and-a-half years.

Jira is highly stable.

We have a relatively small organization, so Jira scales up enough for our purposes.

I rate Atlassian support eight out of 10. If we get stuck, we can usually find solutions from the Jira user community. 

Positive

I wasn't involved in purchasing Jira, but I believe it is affordable for small organizations.

I rate Jira Service Management eight out of 10. It's easy for new users to learn. A lot of the staff members are new to Jira, but it's simple to pick up and learn how all the processes work.

Jira has many features, and I haven't had the opportunity to work with some of them. There are workarounds to accomplish most things you want to do with the product.

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.

Our primary use case for this solution is project management. We use it to record some of our tasks and follow up with our developers to ensure they complete assigned tasks. It is cool and user-friendly. It is easy to navigate and understands most of its functionalities. Additionally, we use it to review developers' tasks and tasks assigned to the QA team from JIRA Service Management to run checks. When we're done with the checks, we do our reports on it, and the project manager can view what has been done. It is a very cool tool, but I didn't work with it for long before I moved to Microsoft Azure Dev Tools.

I can't specify which of the functions are my favourite, because I think everything about it is great. The only challenge is that it is difficult to navigate if you don't have any prior knowledge of the software. However, if you have knowledge, you can navigate around it and know what each tool within the software is used for. I preferred JIRA Service Management before we adopted Azure because I had already started getting familiar with it.

I think it's well organized. If the project manager knows how to set it up, it can be set it up in a way to suit what we want. The only issues we observed are network related, for example, when we try to log into the system or open up the software. Other than that, I don't think there is any other thing I can say that is wrong with the software. The developers did a very good job of knowing what the users wanted. The product is not lacking anything that a QA will want to use because it's not a major testing tool for QA. However, if they can develop their own JIRA development tool, that will be cool, similar to how we have Chrome development tool and Azure. I think it will be good if that can be incorporated into JIRA Service Management.

We have been using this solution for about five months. First, we used the latest cloud-based version where we navigate to the website and key in our community, company name, projects and group. We can then go directly to our workspace, where we see everything we do.

Most software work with the internet. Some of them, especially those that are cloud-based, are also linked with work servers, but there is no guarantee that they are 100% stable. If the network is not stable, then it affects the software. For example, if you open the web browser and type the URL and get a server error, it's usually a network issue. If the network is stable, the platform will work fine, but if it's not stable, you're going to expect some hiccups in the work site.

The scalability depends on the organizations using JIRA Service Management. If it's fitting for what they are using it for, then it's okay. If it's not, they have every right to change it and use something else. We decided to move away from JIRA Service Management to Azure because we felt it wasn't properly organized. I found working with JIRA Service Management interesting because I could look at the extractor and see which task is in development, or emerging, the status of every task and to who it was assigned.

Our company has currently switched from using JIRA Service Management to Azure.

I don't have any details of the initial setup process. 

I don't know anything about the licensing costs. I wasn't with the company when it was installed, and I only used it as a tool for my work. Hence, I cannot comment on pricing.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten, as it does not lack anything. My advice to users is that JIRA Service Management is a good project management tool to handle projects respectively and efficiently. The product is second to none if they know how to use it. Additionally, JIRA Service Management has a learning section where you can go and learn how to use the software. New users to the platform can also capitalize on a cursor feature that describes how to use a particular tool once you hover over it. For those who developed the software, I want to give them a thumbs up as they did a very good job. If there is anything they feel they can add to make it more user-friendly, they should ensure that the users can have access to whatever they want to upgrade on the software and let it be that the users can use that tool effectively. However, the tool could be improved by including more explanations to assist users who are new to the platform. I would describe JIRA Service Management as being 75% user-friendly, but it would be great if it could be 90% user-friendly.