JIRA Service Management Reviews

One of the valuable features is that an automatic response or action can be taken on tickets. We can have certain responses for tickets that contain keywords or are logged and tagged with certain labels.

The other thing is that the solution is starting to get out of just Service Management, and it's providing a Service Management project for other parts of our business. You've got the IT part and you've also got the business support, so people can use it for services like purchase orders, applications for shipping, and other things that are used across the business. That's the other useful part, that you're able to adapt it for other things.

Because it's a cloud platform, and because it's based on people subscribing to a platform, you end up with iterative improvements. I know a lot of users have said that they want a feature, for example, that was on the on-prem version of Jira or that the cloud version is missing, and the biggest issue, and this applies to a lot of cloud or SaaS platforms, is that the vendor can't deliver or do that. They're either unwilling or unable to give feature parity. The nature of a lot of SaaS solutions is that you can't always get the same thing.

The other thing is that you may have a time lag where, suddenly, you don't have a feature anymore, and you have to log an improvement request and then wait for various other factors. Eventually, it might get progressed or it might get stopped. Probably the biggest downside is that you are locked into that model and you have to accept what you signed up for. You have some capacity to extend it with add-ins and things, but for the base feature set, you will always be at the mercy of the vendor.

A lot of the integrations within the marketplace for Jira are all third parties, so a lot of the additional solutions that plug into other platforms are not written by Atlassian and that usually incurs an additional cost. It may not be the model they want and it would stifle competition and external people being able to contribute, but it would be good to see Atlassian provide more native integrations out of the box. I'm not against paying for integration if it's going to provide benefits, but it would be nice if Atlassian themselves were able to provide some things, at least at a basic level. I know third-party vendors can commit resources and probably have far more capability to deliver something that is feature-rich, but if you just want basic integration it would be nice to have it, rather than having to buy something when you may not need all of its functions.

I have been using the solution for probably between four to five years. Previously we used an on-premise installation of Jira, and then we moved to the hosted or Atlassian offering, where they host it in their own cloud. 

From where I sit, the cloud version is superior. Mainly this is due to not having to manage the upkeep of Jira, which was quite frankly a pain, but that's just the nature of Jira.

The solution is relatively stable. There was an incident not long ago where Jira was in the news because there was a small error made by somebody, and they ended up deleting a lot of customer environments and they didn't have any backups. I think that was a wake-up call for a lot of people. Otherwise, stability-wise, it's pretty good. They've got APIs and things for various other actions and we consume that and it seems to be pretty issue-free.

We have increased our license count and our consumption of services, not just with Service Management, but our entire Jira service consumption. We upgraded our subscription at least a couple of times over the last year and it's pretty simple, you literally say what you want to do. The other great thing is that you can trial it. You can say, "I want to initiate a trial of this particular level or subscription," and then you can trial it, piece it all out, and decide whether you're going to increase.

In terms of actual support staff, we have probably between 50 to 75 employees using this solution. The whole business includes between 600 to 650 people who could be using it to log requests.

I think the complexity of the setup depends on what you take with you. We migrated our existing Service Management project to this cloud version. If I was doing it, I wouldn't bother doing that. I would archive that data and start fresh, but it does have a lot of built-in onboarding features that were quite useful. We also have a partner who's a Jira-certified implementer, so they were very helpful with a lot of the issues that we had.

One other thing was getting the SCIM, or the provisioning of users, fixed. We use Azure ID, so it was important that that was done correctly, otherwise licensing would be a nightmare. We wanted to make sure that we weren't licensing people who were no longer active, and also that everyone who needed access, got it.

We didn't require an integrator, but we already had somebody who we were working with, not specifically for Service Management, but for a number of Jira initiatives. They were able to give us pointers. You don't have to have an integrator, but it was useful.

On a scale of one to five, where five is a good price and one is high, I would rate this solution as a three. It isn't cheap but it's not ridiculous.

I would rate this solution as a six out of ten. 

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.

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.

We use this solution to track the work of different team members and to ensure that project tasks get completed. They get assigned tickets relating to those project tasks and and a deadline by which they have to complete the tasks. As they make progress, they update each task in the Jira ticket and this keeps everyone in the loop about their progress.

We have an Agile environment and using Jira makes it easy to adhere to Agile best practices. 

It would be useful to be ale to link tickets across different gantt charts in Jira and Confluence.

I have been using this solution for two and a half years.

This is a stable solution. 

This solution is very scalable. We have tons of people across different companies using it. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We use this solution for ITSM solutions including for our help and service desk for user support ticketing and incidents. There are several use cases for this solution and its usage depends on the kind of the company.

The customer portal with connection with our knowledge base has been most valuable. The queues to classify requests and SLIs to measure the quality of the service response and resolution time have also been great. It offers flexibility to configure workflows.

The product could improve its asset management.

I have been using this solution for seven years. 

It is a stable solution. You can deploy it with high availability in a cluster.

This is a scalable solution. You can add clusters or servers if you need on-premise solution or for a cloud solution.

I would rate the technical support for this solution a four out of five. 

The installation is simple but you need to set up a PDF to initiate the configuration and adapt to the customer or user needs. It's very flexible, but you need to complete the configuration work.

The cloud version or AS version takes minutes or hours to deploy. For on-premise version, you need between five to 20 days. It depends on the initial needs of the customer. Compared with other solutions like ServiceNow or EasyVista, this is a solution that can be deployed in less time.

It depends on the number of users but it starts at $20 per month per user. I would rate them a three out of five for pricing. Asset management has an extra cost. The relation between price, functionality and usability is good.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We use this solution for support for our projects.

I think one of the most valuable things is that it's all integrated. Between the Wiki and the product itself, whenever someone is typing in an error, it automatically pops up a solution.

Whenever we want to fix or improve something, Atlassian send us to the marketplace. We can vote for improvement, but it is really hard to get Atlassian to move forward with production because they have a huge marketplace. There are a lot of companies developing fixes or features, and you can pay for those features. I feel that Atlassian isn't really interested in fixing everything because if they did, the partners that are developing the fixes and features would not have a place in the market. 

An additional feature I would like to see is automation. JIRA offers the functionality of global automation in their highest plan, but it's at a higher price. Sometimes they release good new features, but they're always at a higher price so most of the features are only available for the highest plan. I would like to see new releases also being available to the lowest plan.

I have been working with this solution for four years. 

The solution is quite stable and we've had no problems with it. I would rate the stability as an eight out of ten. 

It is easy to scale, especially because we are working on SaaS, so it's not a problem for us. We have been putting a lot of new projects on JIRA Service Management and we've never had any issues. Approximately 200 employees use this solution at my company. 

I have opened tickets with the support team. Sometimes the answer is good, and sometimes you're commonplace behind a priority search, so it all depends on the technical representative that picks up the ticket. I would rate the technical support as a three out of five. 

Neutral

The initial setup was quite easy. 

On a scale of one to five, with one being really high and five being good, I would rate the price of this solution as a four. 

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. It's a good product. 

We are using it for IT service management and business process management. We are using it for the help desk to handle all internal requests. We have its latest version.

Customizations are most valuable. The customization of workflows is the main power of the Atlassian tools in general. 

Functionality-wise, it is a great tool, and I have no problems with it. In terms of ease of use, ease of setup, and support, you can't go wrong with Atlassian tools.

Its UI is a bit overwhelming for new users. That has been the problem with Jira for a long time. If they could put some fields that we could use to simplify the UI, it would be good.

Transitioning from the server to the cloud has a learning curve. The pain point is again related to UI and not knowing where to look.

There should be an easier way to connect to an external database with special custom fields. It has been a pain point for me for such a long time. There are processes to do it, but I find them cumbersome.

I've been using Jira for over a decade.

In general, it is pretty stable, but sometimes, it has been sluggish. In a month, I have probably encountered this issue four times. It doesn't impede my work. It is just sluggish. 

Sometimes, I get kicked out of the system. That typically happens when we're starting with some configuration.

Scalability-wise, you can definitely scale your systems or integrate with other third parties. There are also plug-ins that you could use and evaluate. So, you do get the flexibility to install plugins. 

Before moving to the cloud, I could use plugins for more than 30 days, and I just had to give a request for additional months, but it is not working anymore in the cloud. It is probably because of the company that creates the plugins. 

We have 50 users. It doesn't require maintenance. We only maintain workflow changes, and the system runs on its own. Even upgrades are done by them. It is pretty easy as compared to the server version.

For the cloud, I would rate their support a nine out of 10. I don't have to worry about the system. I haven't experienced anything like that before transitioning to the cloud.

If I have to troubleshoot a problem, there is a lot of online documentation. I can also connect with the community. Sometimes, it is faster to Google than contacting their support.

It was straightforward. It happens at the click of a button. It is very easy as compared to setting up the server, which took a lot of skills. 

Setting it up just takes a few minutes. It is fast. If a workflow is complex, it would take a day. It depends on the complexity of the workflows, but generally, it is really fast.

I am using the free version, but my clients are paying for it. When they start, they evaluate it for 30 days, and after seeing the value, they move to its paid version.

I didn't evaluate other options. It is my favorite tool, but I am aware of ServiceNow and other ones. If you have Jira, you might as well get their whole ecosystem. If you're in development, you will get Bitbucket and Confluence as well for documentation. For Service Management, there is Jira Service Desk. I usually use their whole package. If there are integration problems, only then we would evaluate other solutions, but we could definitely connect with Jira by API. Atlassian products are very good. We always had Atlassian tools.

I am an evangelist of Atlassian tools, so I usually engage with my clients in using them. Everybody is into digital transformation, and we have been engaging with clients, and we're promoting Atlassian for their digital transformation. One thing that I always tell my clients is that they should have a single source of tools. Atlassian is always at the top of my list with Jira, Service Desk, and Confluence. These are my top three products of Atlassian that I usually give them. 

Based on my experience, you should go for the full Atlassian ecosystem if you are looking for IT service management and workflow management for your businesses. If you are into development, Jira is definitely one of the best tools out there. You can pretty much use the whole suite. Scalability-wise, you can easily scale your systems or integrate with other third parties. The only caveat is that you need to have someone who is actually an expert in Atlassian tools for you to be able to maximize it. It is very powerful if you know how to maximize it.

In the context of business process and workflow management, it would be impossible to implement good process management or workflow management in Jira if you haven't defined one. It is important to define the processes and then train people. If you don't train your staff using Atlassian Suite, you're not maximizing your investment.

I would rate Jira Service Management a nine out of 10.

My clients use Service Management for general ITSM ticketing. They typically use Jira internally for providing help desk services to other departments, but one of my customers uses it for his customers, like external websites, etc.

Service Management is great if you're an Atlassian shop already using JIRA for the development team and you want another tool for help desk ticketing. When it's all under the same umbrella, I can easily take a ticket from the help desk and move it to the development team. You can't beat that integration between two products. 

Service Management is highly customizable, but I think it might be too customizable. If a company isn't aware of the best practices, it can easily mess something up. For example, you might try automating something that Jira doesn't support, and it could interfere with the product's out-of-the-box capabilities. 

Asset management should be built into Service Management. Typically, companies need both. You have to buy Atlassian's asset management solution separately. It could either be offered as a bundle or some lighter version of asset management could be included with Service Management. 

I have been using Jira Service Management for a year or so.

I have confidence in Service Management. 

Service Management is scalable. 

I rate Atlassian support two out of 10. It takes a lot of time to reach them and get ahold of someone who understands my problem enough to provide a solution. Also, I live in Israel, so my work week is Sunday through Thursday, but I can only contact them from Monday to Wednesday.

Negative

I've worked with ServiceNow. Comparatively, Jira provides a good solution at a reasonable price, and it's quicker to implement inside a company. ServiceNow's implementation is complex. I'm more comfortable with Jira. 

I rate Service Management six out of 10 for ease of setup. At first, setting up Service Management seems incredibly easy. You log into the website and access the site, but nothing comes from the backend because you don't have anything set up for the company. You need to set up the fields, workflows, etc. Companies expect to be able to do it fast after buying the license, but it's not that quick. It typically takes five days to set it up. It isn't a plug-and-play solution.

I rate Service Management four out of 10 for affordability. The price could be better, especially for companies using more than one Atlassian product. It's suitable for SMBs that can afford it. I don't think there's another tool that's both better and cheaper. All help desk tools are relatively expensive.

You also need to consider the overall work we need to do on the tool. The five days of work needed for deployment isn't much, but it requires ongoing maintenance over time.

I rate Jira Service Management seven out of 10. If you plan to implement Service Management, you need to be aware that you can do whatever you want with it, but you might not know the long-term effects. If you do too much automation, it could have unforeseen consequences in the long run. You need to be highly specific about your needs from the start, so you can correctly build the tool's architecture.