ServiceNow Reviews

We primarily use the solution in a variety of ways, including the NOW platform (CMDB, Workflows, Service Portal, Service Catalog, Reporting), Custom AppDev, SecOps (Vulnerability Response with Tenable integration and Security Incident Response), Governance Risk and Compliance (GRC), IT Service Management (ITSM), IT Asset Management (ITAM), IT Operations Management (Service Mapping, Discovery, Event Management), IT Business Management (including Project Portfolio Management (PPM)), HR Service Delivery (HRSD), Software Asset Management (SAM), and Facilities Service Management (FSM).

We can now transform operations from excel spreadsheets and emails to a central system of record/truth. ServiceNow can either replace or integrate with a prospect/customer's existing solutions - especially if such integrations are common.

ServiceNow ensures a customer's investment by having 2 releases per year.  Prospect/customers considering implementing or expanding its ServiceNow investment should enlist the help of ServiceNow partners to support their effort throughout their journey.

ServiceNow is an industry leader in multiple areas and provides an excellent ROI. 

The platform (PaaS) is a low-code/no-code platform on a secure Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS - Government Cloud Computing environment (GCC)), with a single data model and a single system of record. Its applications (SaaS) can easily be extended with workflows and other built-in APIs together with the ServiceNow Integration Hub and other applications available on the ServiceNow Store. The platform is very flexible and built to be integrated.  

ServiceNow is an industry leader in multiple areas and provides an excellent ROI.

I have no further information to add to this, however, there is much more information offered by Forester, Gartner, and ServiceNow to augment this input.  

We are a ServiceNow partner, as well as Salesforce and other cloud-based IaaS, SaaS, and PaaS transformative solutions, and have been for over 10 years. Often, we are engaged with our customers for years, helping to build roadmaps that allow them to expand their solutions over time because resources are limited and organizational change management takes time.

Like all other IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS subscription cloud providers, ServiceNow is constantly improving by building new capabilities to expand the breadth and depth of its offerings while increasing its activities with partners to build more capabilities. As ServiceNow and its partners/customers expand the capabilities, I see new vertical applications being created (currently underway for TELCO and other industries). Stay tuned for more updates that not only provide new capabilities but also enhance existing ones.

I've been implementing ServiceNow for over 5 years for various clients.

The solution has excellent stability and we're working with a client that has one of the largest implementations of ITSM and SecOps in the world.

The solution offers excellent scalability. For example, currently, we are working with a client that has one of the largest implementations of ITSM and SecOps in the world.

The product offers excellent support.

Yes, the process is straightforward, but using an experienced services firm is best - especially if implementing the product for the first time.

CoreSphere, LLC - CSAT scores are published on the ServiceNow partner page. Other are reviews completed in the US Federal government's Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARs).

The ROI a company can get depends on the customer and the investment.

We use the solution as it's a requirement for our standards of use in the future. I primarily use the product to look for tickets. I also check for future projects and so on.

The solution is very easy to use.

Now that I've worked with it a little bit, I can find what I need rather quickly.

It was pretty easy to implement the solution.

The solution is quite sizable. There are a lot of features.

It can scale well.

The product is stable.

The solution integrates well with other products.

We've been pretty happy with the level of support they offer their clients.

A new user does need training or time to learn the solution before jumping in. It was very hard in the beginning to understand everything. I couldn't find the models I needed at the time.

I've only been using the solution for a few months. It's only been a rather short amount of time.

The stability of the product is good. There aren't bugs or glitches to deal with. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The solution is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, they can do so.

At our organization, there are about 300 users on the product currently.

We'll be using the solution into the future.

The solution has fairly good technical support. We're pretty satisfied with their level of service. I'd say they are responsive and knowledgable.

We previously used HP before switching to this product.

The solution was easy to implement as it wasn't styled out. It wasn't too complex.

Normally there is staff training near the beginning. This is not the case anymore. You can use it right away, however, it is difficult in the beginning, coming at it from a new user's perspective. That's the main thing to keep in mind. Organizations should be aware of this at the outset and plan for it.

During the implementation, we did get help from outside sources. This assisted in the setup process. It helps if a company gets training before as well.

I'm not responsible for licensing and therefore don't have any information in terms of pricing or cost structure. It's not something that I need to worry about in my day to day.

I assume that we are using the most up to date version of the solution. 

I would recommend the solution.

On a scale from one to ten, overall, I would rate it at an eight.

We use it for ITSM and ITBM.

The area where we have benefited a lot is that, initially, it was very difficult to have end-to-end visibility into what was happening. We didn't have any kind of top-down or bottom-up approach to CMDB and ITSM processes across it. We were able to establish that with ServiceNow. Our other ITSM models are pretty dependent on CMDB elements, so that gives an overall picture of what is happening and where it is happening.

• Request module
• Orchestration
• The PPM Module is pretty important in our organization

The workflow is something we use on a day-to-day basis. It's pretty handy the way it is in ServiceNow. 

As our ServiceNow implementation focuses on Healthcare domain which is highly regulated , Hence we are unable to follow the full agile way to develop/implement application enhancement or new requirements , Hence we follow a hybrid delivery model where  we have integrated following servicenow modules Demand-Requirement-agile Developement- Test Management -Defect Management- Change Managementto bring our releases/changes in a regular basis , enables us to practice CIP & also helps us in having an end to end tracebility.

Also, in the Service Portal, use of Angular JS gives a very good look & feel & a lot can be done with OOB widgets - By modifying existing widget which is pretty simple, We can leverage a lot on top of it. 

Finally, I also like the architecture for collaborating between business logic and client interaction on our client interfaces.

For healthcare, which is a pretty audited environment, there are no concrete solutions for digital signatures, apart from our license with Adobe, so it requires orchestration. That is one area for improvement.

Apart from that, initially, we struggled with financial forecasting and financial management in the PPM module. That needs improvement along with the IntegrationHub which came out in a recent release. It's still in its initial stages. That could grow into a more solid solution that could be more helpful.

It's pretty much a stable product.

It has good scalability.

There is a version upgrade every year, which ServiceNnow pushes, so it remains pretty scalable if you remain pretty close to out-of-the-box. It becomes less scalable if you go in a direction where you want to use ServiceNow as the platform and build your own solution with complex logic behind it. Then, that's an issue.

I would rate the support they provide us, at above three out of five. If they do not come up with a solution or our request is out of the scope of their support, they do help us with a direction for how to get it done.

To start with, we wanted a global planning platform for all our ITSM activity, throughout the business, for internal IT. That's the reason we started migrating ITSM from different groups to ServiceNow. We did some homework on that, such as what was the market position of ServiceNow and how we could integrate with other third-party applications. After doing that analysis we came up with the ServiceNow as our option.

The setup, on a technical basis, was not that difficult. But if I want to involve different businesses into using change management, it becomes a challenge to understand the process and implement it on a platform which is standard for everyone. So it's not really the technical aspect, it's more the procedural aspect.

It took us about eight months to roll out ITSM. But after that, we have had other instances where we use a custom solution, out-of-scope applications for our customer service area, and we were able to implement it within three months.

Initially, the deployment was done by a solution partner and, to be honest, they came up with some functions that activated a lot of things which were not needed. But at that moment, it was very necessary for us to quickly jump into the ITSM module and make it available for everyone.

Later on, we realized that there were many things implemented which were not needed. Many approaches were customized but were not required. For example, Incidents is the table where we are currently doing requests, and that was introduced by the solution partner. But when we involved request-management with Incidents, we somehow missed out on a lot of process automation. There is a powerful workflow with this solution and you can do a lot of process automation, depending on different services. 

We looked at 

• BMC Remedy vs ServiceNow
• Micro Focus Service Manager vs ServiceNow
• JIRA vs ServiceNow
• and Cherwell vs ServiceNow.

You can get the most out of ServiceNow if you align your processes more towards the out-of-the-box solution, and not over-customize it to create a solution.

We have 3,000 users hosted on it but not everyone has write-access to the system. There are users who are end users who get Portal access to manage their tasks. Apart from that, there are a few fulfillers who are using the write-access: the support staff, such as the change manager or change coordinator. And then we have admins.

In terms of extent of use, currently, we have more than one instance of ServiceNow. We have three different instances for three different areas, and they have their own sets of uses.

Maintenance is mostly outsourced to a vendor who provides elemental and entry support. We are keeping more of the architectural and solution-designing work in-house.

I would rate ServiceNow at eight out of ten. It could be a ten if we had a more central way of connecting ServiceNow with different systems. They have taken initiative with the IntegrationHub and I'm really looking forward to that. Also, virtual assistance is something that has started, but we have so many requirements regarding intelligent agents being integrated with it. I'm looking forward to that. If ServiceNow rolled those solutions into it, it would enhance our end-user experience and I could probably rate it a ten.

We primarily use this for our North America practice of IT Asset Management and IT Service Management (incident, problem, change, and knowledge). We also use it for HR Case Management and are now developing business applications in order to perform things like IP and Application Management.

I like the ease of use of the ServiceNow platform. 

We have used ServiceNow for HR case management, IT Asset Management, IT Service Management, and custom business applications

The value of features has changed with each release. Initially I was impressed with the automation capability. Now, the look and feel is a valuable benefit for adoption. The most recent addition of SAM Premium is a game changer for many organizations.

I would like to see Advanced Intelligent Automation. I can't wait to see how ServiceNow continues to build out the automation capability with things like RPA, OCR, and even machine learning capabilities to help make giant steps forward in the ITSM space.

The workflow capability for easy setup is powerful. Combine this with automation and you have a great tool which is built on ITSM principles.

As a platform approach I would say I really like this vision of saying ServiceNow is an application platform now as a service where we can build any application we want to so we have some applications on the baseline like in sales management, like change management, now customer services, like security operation. If we need to build other applications we can do it, the same way if we want to modify an application, we can do it as long as we follow the base practices.

It's something really nice to do with ServiceNow because all legacy products when you were trying to do something a little bit on the side, it didn't work anymore and was very out of grade. Here, with our customers it's actually nice to upgrade ServiceNow.

It's like when you work on science, you say, when I answer one question, I have 10 other questions rising up. I see the same thing with ServiceNow. When something is added on ServiceNow on the platform, then you have 10 more things to do because you have to improve again and again and again. Here what could we do? They probably have a lot of things to do with IOT. We can always improve a lot of things about how we work between citizen developers and professional developers.

I am a professional developer so I know about Javascript, about coding, about scripting, technical stuff, but need as well to have people who don't anything about it would just and test it by their business side of the things. I want to engage them more and more to do things, to start doing things and when they are stuck with something, they just say, "Okay, David, please come to us, please help us with this thing. Please finish up the polish part," and then we arrive. Those are the things I would like to improve to engage more and more and more the citizen developers.

I started using it in December 2011.

I think we've got one customer who had an outage once, or maybe twice. One was a mistake we did on an integration and not the fault of ServiceNow. Second one is that the personnel forgot to change some certificates, so the instance was working perfectly, but the customer said, "I have an outage here and why?" We looked at it and we say, "Did you do your work here?" "Oh shit! I have to do it now." Yeah, extremely nice. I never had any issue with ServiceNow.

We go through the smallest customers, probably have something like 30 people and the biggest ones probably have thousands of people using ServiceNow everyday.

It's working very nicely, with scalability. Again, scalability with number of people, but also different teams working on ServiceNow, different processes, different countries. You can work with people all over the world together because ServiceNow won't stop working at 9:00 in the evening for European time.

Extremely good. The latest incident I have registered on high support was last week and maybe it was extremely complex, extremely technical, but after maybe one hour or two hours they came back with an answer saying, "Yeah, David, please read the documentation because it explains there that what you're trying to do is not actually possible." They provides all the answers and explanation why it's not really good to do it.

It's different for each company because if you are already quite mature with your processes, if you have good communication on your team, if you are obvious approach of collaborating between people, it's extremely easy. It can take just weeks to do it. On the other side, if you had legacy processes, you customized the previous tools and if you don't have this collaboration approach with the different teams and if everyone says, "I know what I need. I need this and only this feature and I can't listen to you if you tell me otherwise."

In that case, it might take more time, not because of ServiceNow but because we need a chance to culture the company. We need to have a culture shift on the company to be able to go to the right direction on ServiceNow. Communication, marketing, intel or involvement, engagement with people. That's extremely important to do.

If you need more time to do, for example, user acceptance testing, if you say, "Well I'm not secure as a customer to go live now." "Okay, let's take one more week, two more weeks to test. We probably won't do anything, any new developments, just a sync," but at least you will be sure that your users know ServiceNow, they are ready for go live and will be smooth. That's the most important. You go live when it's smooth, and not when it will be hectic.

I have customers who use HP Service Manager, BMC Remedy or CA. Personally, I tried in 2011, I have tried to work on BMC Remedy for maybe two months. I didn't learn that much. When I had the opportunity to go on ServiceNow, I said, "Yes, let's try." It was very nice and I have also spent maybe two days on HP Service Manager and that was the two most boring days of my life.

Yeah, the only thing we have to say with customers who already have some product today, especially in ITSM, is don't implement what you have from BMC or HP in ServiceNow. When you do ServiceNow, you do the ServiceNow way, not the BMC or not the HP way. That's extremely important because that's where you can end up with something extremely complex, not only for the platform. The platform can manage it, the platform don't care. Technically it's possible. For the people, for the users, for the end users for the fulfillers, you want to do something simple.

For example, for one customer, a small customer like one Android people IT guys, small customer. They had on instant management they had three Android categories. When you do some ServiceNow implementations, the first implementation step, you have to review your processes and review the requirements. Be sure you have the right things in place and not the things you don't need. Yeah. I think if I have say three words about a good ServiceNow implementation, it's all about upgradabiity, because you have to upgrade every six months or every year so you need to think about the upgradability of your platform. You have to think about the performance and you have to think about the value.

If you request anything and if you are a customer and you ask me anything to me, I will tell you what is the justification. If you don't have any justification, I will tell you, "Well, I'm sorry. I can't do it." I'll go to the CS person, and the they will say, I want this feature and I will say, "Okay. You are the customer, I do whatever you need, but above that, you need a justification." That's extremely important.

I implement ServiceNow for our customers. I'm a reseller and we are partners of ServiceNow. I'm the company business developer.

From my point of view, it's the best solution in the market. It's so easy to implement, the ratio of days to implement is the lowest in the market; I can respond to all the needs of my clients. Based on my experience with BMC and EasyVista, ServiceNow is the best solution.

The price is a huge barrier in the Portugese market when it comes to implementing ServiceNow.

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

Technical support is the best because they respond quickly. They have good SLAs to respond to our tickets with the correct priorities, it's very well defined. Compared with other suppliers, it's fantastic.

The initial setup is very easy. Based on my experience with BMC and EasyVista, ServiceNow is the easiest solution to implement.

Licensing costs are the highest in the market. It's difficult to sell in Portugal, but for the rest of Europe, it's easy to sell because we can easily justify the value that the customer will gain from the product.

It's important to understand all the components of the solution. After that, with the base knowledge, it's easy to implement. It also helps to have some knowledge about processes based on the ITIL and ISO 20000. It's most important to become familiar with that to implement the solution.

I rate the solution nine out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution for tickets and we use it for order processing.

We use the product for incident management, asset management, and service management. Those are the three big use cases. It's mostly asset management.

We use a ton of the features.

The best feature for me, personally, is Discovery. That one is super useful for us. Discovery is super advantageous. That has brought us a long way forward. That is a big deal for us. It's gotten us away from the manual of walking the floor to trying to find the assets.

The other one that is really big for us is Automatic Workflows. That is a big deal and certainly helps with the streamlining of the process and the interconnectivity with incident management.

The solution is very stable.

The company went out of their way to help us and even helped us save about six months of deployment time.

If you stick to the out-of-the-box solution, it's an easy setup.

You can scale the solution quite well.

Technical support is very helpful and very responsive.

The licensing needs to be divided into tiers in order to attract lower-level users.

Right now, the licensing is kind of an all or nothing and so what happens is, is that either somebody has full access or they don't have any access due to the way the licensing works. There is this kind of view for ITIL purposes access that we kind of need, and we don't have access to it. If you think of RACI, it's informed access. You would need a full license to be able to do it. And we just don't. It really caused us a level of visibility loss. 

Basically, what the licensing offers now is just for doers. There's no viewer role. It really needs a viewer role or an approver role level of licensing without a doer role license having to be issued.

If you move away from the out-of-the-box configurations, the initial implementation can get complex and take a while.

I've been using the solution for about two years at this point.

I love the stability. We were lucky enough to be physically located very close to Service Now. When we were hitting problems with our internal organization to roadblocks, we literally drove up to Service Now headquarters and sat down with them for an eight-hour session to revamp our whole internal process. I was pretty sure that if we would have continued down our own process, we would have taken another six months. However, with Service Now's assistance, we fixed it in one day just by having access directly to Service Now. That was an amazing process. They enabled us to jump forward six months and made things super stable.

We're a huge company. Scalability is definitely possible. We're scaling to over 100,000 users. We have asset management users, incident managements, software deployment, hardware deployments, break fixes, asset monitoring, et cetera, all on this solution. 

We do plan to increase usage in the future.

If a company needs to scale, it can do so, no problem.

Technical support has been great. They are extremely helpful and responsive. We're quite satisfied with the level of service we receive as an organization.

We did previously use different solutions. Everything was fragmented. We were able to combine multiple systems. We tied multiple systems to combine them into one ServiceNow offering. We wanted to consolidate 50 or more systems into a single system and Service Now is one of the two options we looked at that was able to do that.

The deployment process is basically about requiring, gathering, and then developing or customizing the product itself for the workflows and then deploying it out into the field. It's really pretty simple, as long as you stick to a lot of the out-of-box functionality. 

When you start to get away from the out-of-box functionality, you can really link in the deployment process. Anything that you go out past that out-of-box functionality, you can really hurt yourself. Basically, it has the capability of getting very complicated. However, if you stick to out-of-the-box, it's simple. We personally found that out the hard way.

For us, the deployment process took two years. 

We recruited some outside help to assist us in the implementation. We found that having experts on hand was extremely beneficial.

I'd recommend outside help. There are definitely some nuances within the deployment that having some experts within Service Now is very helpful - especially when you're first time to have some outside thinking. 

Our organization has noticed an ROI. They're happy with it.

The licensing needs to offer a variety of levels to meet what an organization actually needs. Right now, it's all or nothing, and that can get costly.

We also evaluated SAP against ServiceNow. We ended up choosing ServiceNow in the end, however, I can't recall what the deciding factor or factors were.

I'm a customer and end-user. 

We are using the FAAS version of the solution currently.

I would advised those companies considering the solution to take advantage of what the programs do rather rather than try to lift and shift.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten overall.

We use ServiceNow for all service delivering processes within service management. For service and incident problems, change and configuration management, relief management, and event management.

Within our organization, there are roughly 30,000 users, using ServiceNow.

From a service perspective, I think that being able to customize it great. It's a very low-code platform, and it's simple. The user experience is also really good.

From a configuration/discovery perspective, how you map your infrastructure and the relationship — that could be improved in a sense to make it simpler. I know that discovery tools are not meant to be simple, but somehow, if they could make it more simple and robust, that would be great.

You just need plenty of experience with the solution, then it becomes much easier to use.

Other than that, I can't think of anything else that I would like ServiceNow to include in the next release. 

I have been using ServiceNow for two years.

ServiceNow is very stable. The scalability is also great.

I can't evaluate their technical support because I don't get support from ServiceNow myself. I'm responsible for implementing it for our clients, but we don't provide support.

The initial setup was very easy.

Initially, deployment took us eight months. Once we had some experience with it, we could deploy it in four months.

My advice would be to evaluate the license more — seriously look into their licensing options. The way that ServiceNow licenses the product, there is no concurrent user model so you have to pay for each user, and each type of user, that uses the tool. It can be very expensive depending on how you use it. Sometimes you cannot implement other modules because they don't have a budget for that. So make sure you correctly look over the different types of licenses to make sure you understand what to expect.

ServiceNow should review and make the solution more flexible for clients who have more users, or users that are not concurring, to know how to share licenses. To have options depending on how the client wants to use them so that everyone can benefit from it — that would be my advice. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give ServiceNow a rating of eight.