SCSM Reviews

I am part of an auditing team in a bank in Nigeria and we use SCSM for service management when it comes to unknown errors and knowledge problems. We use it in our service technology management system because we are ISO 20000 certified. For most of our service technology issues, such as internal customer requests and solving incidences we escalate them to the second level and log them into the necessary departments.

I have found SCSM not adequate enough to carry out some functions.

I have been using SCSM for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The support from Microsoft is good and we also have local support on the ground in Nigeria.

The installation was straightforward.

Our internal IT department is in charge of implementing and maintenance of this solution.

The price of the solution could be better. My organization has an enterprise annual license with Microsoft which provides us support.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SCSM an eight out of ten.

The Separate Activity management module is really helpful in view of the complexity of the tasks (incidents and change requests) we perform daily.

There are several automated processes through the tool we perform (IM, SRF, CM, activity management). And the routine of emails, calls and verbal approaches are directed to the tool specially customized to our needs.

Improved time management, all the details logged (nothing missed), roles and responsibilities in tool are set according to policy/procedure.

Out-of-the-box SCSM Self-Service portal is almost useless. You can research third party products that will allow you to use more features of SCSM via a web self service portal as well.

Also, the lack of a mobile version is disappointing.

I've used it for approximately one year.

Sometimes the SCSM console on a FAT client hangs.

The number of console connections should be not 50 per management server (as per Microsoft advice) but less than 40 due to performance issues.

6/10 - the overall Microsoft technical support is surely higher, but taking into consideration that any incident that affects business continuity will take a week or to be solved because of a lack of SCSM experts severely takes something away.

I didn’t choose SCSM, but was forced to work with it.

Previously, I used two in-house developed tools, ManageEngine and CA Service Desk Manager.

We followed Microsoft's advice, and it was straightforward.

It was implemented in-house and the only valuable advise is to plan, again plan then do, check and then act. You need to know how many users, what roles, what services, SLAs, tiers, members, and distribution lists because SCSM works with AD DL`s for allocating roles.

Look around as there are a lot of better solutions!

We primarily use the solution for incident management.

The solution is quite easy to integrate with other Microsoft products.

It's not too hard to compile stuff but it is hard to manage the solution. Even the design itself makes it difficult for management. 

In the next release of the solution, they should include Enterprise Service Management.

I can speak only for how well it works for small businesses, but it's not fully compliant with the ISO. It's okay for the on-premises version. I don't know about the newest version for 2019.

I don't have any experience dealing with technical support.

The initial setup isn't too difficult. It's moderate in terms of difficulty. It takes a bit of work to personalize it for our purposes.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

Right now, we aren't really that happy with the solution and are considering switching to ServiceNow.

In terms of advice I'd give to others considering implementing the solution, I'd suggest that they pay attention to their service catalogs.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

We primarily implement the solution to clients.

Ticketing systems these days are based on ITIL framework. The solution has incident management, change management, request fulfillment management, release management, problem management, and CMDB also. With integration capabilities with the other system centers like SCCM & SCOM, for example, we are able to build robust CMDB configuration management database.

It has some advantages and some disadvantages like any software, but overall, most customers just prefer the product.

One of the disadvantages in this product is that the reporting module is not very easy. It requires SQL development skills, which not all customers or IT professionals have. 

There are very few default reports available and to create a custom report requires some special skills. The solution would benefit from making reporting and creating custom reports much easier and user-friendly.

Microsoft is a technology giant so they have the resources to do improvements or enhance the product, but I don't know if they will invest in it. It depends on their policy or their long-term development plans. Other ITSM solutions, for example, have other resources and they have very strong, and very flexible reporting modules that are easy to use. Microsoft should emulate them and do the same to enhance their product.

The customization in the form is not easy. It requires if we want to customize a form (like a change management or incident form) an installation of some tool called Services Manager Altering Tool. This is difficult. In comparison, in ServiceNow, you can add a custom field, and do some changes right in the form. With Service Manager, yes it is there and we can do it, but it is not easy or straightforward. We require special skills to make it happen. It needs to be easier.

The solution would benefit from offering a web interface and a better Sales Service Portal.

If the solution could add event planning and event management as a feature in the future that would be ideal. Currently, event management is measured within incident management, which is not the best practice according to ITIL when we integrate the SCSM with SCOM. SCOM is a monitoring tool in System Center and when SCOM triggers an alert and creates a ticket in Service Manager, it goes in as an incident ticket. I believe it's supposed to be an event. However, I suppose it could be either an incident or event, depending on the type, severity, or nature of the issue.

I've been using the solution for nine years.

There are some issues with the system. For example, sometimes the workflows get stuck. However, overall, it is a stable solution. Any software in the world will have bugs and defects. Still, we cannot say, "No it is unstable." It's stable - just with a few issues. This is typical.

In terms of scalability, the good thing in SCSM is that it has a lot of add-ons and third-party tools can be installed on it. There is a wide range of products can be installed, but the problem is while most can be installed, they often cost money in order to install them. We need to either appreciate the license we have or buy the add-on product from the vendor. 

We've been in contact with Microsoft technical support mainly. After doing the research ourselves and troubleshooting, etc., if we can't find a permanent solution, we contact Microsoft to help us fix the issue. Sometimes the issue never gets fixed even by Microsoft. It can sometimes require us to reinstall the solution. However, these are very rare instances. 

Overall, they are very good. We'd rate them eight out of ten.

I also work on ServiceNow, Service Manager is nothing comparable to ServiceNow. You cannot really compare it to ServiceNow. The majority of market share is divided between BMC Remedy, ServiceNow, and Avanti Service Manager. Now they are all challenging SCSM and trying to get into the market. Although they are doing a good job, I have experienced using ServiceNow. I do have some knowledge about Avanti Service Manager, however. 

There's a good product that is suitable also for small and medium enterprises which like ManageEngine Servicedesk Plus. I had experienced it more than eight years ago. I had implemented the tool in my environment or in my work back then and it was very good and I loved working with it but I'm not working with it anymore.

Service Manager is not doing very well because, for example, there is no default web application and in order to use Service Manager we have to use the desktop console which is a disadvantage. If we need to have a web console or web application then we need to buy a solution from a third party company. 

Since the other products are already web-based applications, we don't need to buy a third-party solution to have access. It just seems to be the case with Service Manager that there's only the desktop. It is one of the main disadvantages along with the issues surrounding reporting. The reporting is very poor in Service Manager unless you have someone who has good skills and a strong technical background.

The initial setup is not very complex, but it requires some basic knowledge and skills to understand how to install the SQL server. It's not straightforward, either. It's something in the middle. However, it requires some technical know-how. That said, it is easy to learn how to install it. It's not like SCCM for example. System Center Configuration Manager is much more complicated. There are others as well that are not easy to install. This solution is just much simpler to handle in comparison.

In terms of deployment, the basic installation could take one day just to install the servers without any configuration or special customization taken into account. It might take one to two days, or, more likely, one and a half days to install the basic servers and to prepare the infrastructure for the program. 

In order to configure the product and make the customizations based on the customer needs or requirements, it could take as long as three or four months. That's on average. It could also take up to six or eight months for a full deployment, but it depends on the client.

You only need one person to deploy the solution. Any ticketing system, any ITSM tool, doesn't require many human resources in order to complete the project. Products like ServiceNow might require more people. One for implementation, and one for the development, for example. In Service Manager, we might need one more person who has some SQL reporting skills who can help us create a custom report. For a normal installation, however, one consultant is enough.

You also only need one person to maintain it. Sometimes after doing the project, after completing the project via one consultant, we assign another consultant for the maintenance. However, the maintenance itself is quite minimal.

We are consultants and help clients handle the implementation of the product.

The solution does charge for add-ons and third party installations most of the time.

I'm an ITSM consultant. I'm an IT project management consultant and I'm working on Microsoft Service Manager and ServiceNow. I specialize in these two products: Microsoft System Center Service Manager SCSM, and ServiceNow ITSM. Our company is a Microsoft System Center Golden Partner.

SCSM is an on-premise deployment. There is no cloud deploying for SCSM.

We typically deal with small to medium-sized businesses. However, the product is suitable for all business sizes, including enterprise-level organizations.

I'd warn users considering implementing the solution that there are some product limitations that they should be aware of.

Giving the solution a rating is difficult as it depends on the customer's requirements and needs. For example, if we gave an F1 race car driver a very good car, but not a car that fits his needs, it's still a good car, it's just not right for the race car driver because it doesn't fulfill his requirements.

From our experience working with the solution, I'd rate it a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case for this product is to manage customer service.

This product has helped our organization by allowing people to connect with each other.

The best thing about this product is that it is digital.

The price of this solution is high and it needs to be cheaper.

This is a stable solution.

It is an expensive solution.

I would recommend this product to a colleague from another company.

Overall, I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use this solution for internal IT incidents, IT requests, and the service catalog.

This is an on-premises deployment.

This solution is easy to use. You don't have to create a new process.

The interface needs to support better customization.

I would like to have the ability to integrate with other systems from the back-end. I am using Orchestrator and it is a little bit difficult because there are too many constraints. I want to connect to other applications to get the data directly.

Mobile application integration would be an improvement.

We have had problems in the past, but the latest version is stable.

We only have one location with one database that is centralized. 

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

I use SCSM for incident management.

The most valuable feature is the reporting of incidents.

The ITSM features have to be improved.

We would like to see a web-based interface that works on mobile devices.

We have been using this solution for about one year.

We haven't had any problems with respect to stability. We haven't experienced any bugs or other issues.

We have been in touch with technical support and I think that they are good.

I did not install this software on the server, but my understanding is that it was straightforward. On the Help Desk side, the setup is not complex.

It took us less than one month to deploy.

We are currently evaluating other solutions such as ServiceNow and BMC Helix ITSM. Our intention is to replace this solution with a better one.

This is not a product that I recommend. My suggestion for anybody who is looking for this type of solution is to evaluate ServiceNow and BMC Helix ITSM.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

My clients use it as a central management solution. 

It is a simple solution that is easy to configure. 

The product needs to improve its integration with other tools. It also needs to have a better UI and a simple dashboard. 

I have been working the product for ten years. 

The solution is stable and I would rate its stability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the tool's scalability a seven out of ten. 

The product's setup is easy. I would rate the solution's setup a seven out of ten. The product's deployment took three days to complete.  

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. You need to keep your configuration simple.