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.

Our use case is around the core idle processes in general. We use it as a service management capability for managing intercom and so forth.

Primarily, we use it for incident management and change across the landscape. It is the virtual repository for our incident management processes. It gives us visibility about what's happening from the change management perspective across our CABs, including our enterprise CABs.

We find it good in general. Obviously, there are areas of improvement for every capability. As they evolve more, if they keep on adding more intelligence into the capabilities, it will improve. The improvement areas are more integration across the landscape and more intelligence for the overall capability of the solution.

We've been a ServiceNow customer for around five years.

It is stable. It has been one of the more stable capabilities that we have for operations.

It is an enterprise solution. Scaling has not been an issue for us.

We have got technical account managers for our account. They are available and responsive. When we go through customary support channels, they are responsive as well. There are no issues.

We did use a different solution, and there were a couple of reasons why we went through the transformation. One of them was to have enhanced capability and being able to do more with singular capability versus multiple capabilities. This was the primary reason for the switch.

For the most part, it was straightforward. We were doing a bit of a transition, transformation, and concept. We were transitioning from one capability to another, and we had all those at the right touchpoints from an integration perspective. Overall, it was relatively stable and smooth.

The major thing is to stay close to out of the box and limit those customizations. This would be the bit that I would share with others.

I would rate ServiceNow a seven out of ten.

We use it for a combination of things. I would say that the two big use cases that I'm aware of are for logging general acute IT issues. Then they also use it for actual security-specific issues. These are the two main use cases that I'm aware of. 

In terms of the most valuable features, it's nice to have everything in one place. Things are easy to follow up on. ServiceNow provides that workflow. I know at some level it is in the pipeline and then if I need to follow up, everything's there. Those are the key benefits of ServiceNow. 

I find ServiceNow to be a little bit clunky. If I need to report an issue they have a number of different options. I can report an issue, I can ask a question, I can make a request and it has varying levels of importance or levels of attention required. I find that what's required to submit is not always clear. 

For example, I was once trying to import an issue and it required that I submit a screenshot. I kept clicking to try and get through and there were some paper clips in the rear upper corner that I didn't notice and I didn't know were required. That kind of issue bugs me about it. The guidelines are not as easy to use. I think it's a little bit clunky. It's not user-friendly.

We have had ServiceNow installed for at least the last three years.

I've never had an issue with it in terms of stability. It's always available when I need it.

As far as the scalability of this solution, my guess is it is probably good.

The setup was pretty straightforward. They rolled this thing out and nobody has been swapped over from the road system is pretty seamless.

This solution is fine, and I would certainly tell others to give it a look.

I don't know if there are more features available. It needs a more intuitive interface. They need to make it easier to understand what's required and probably make it a little nicer looking because it looks industrial.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

For the most part, we have used prior ITSM solutions and they have been a bit more difficult to integrate and customize into the rest of the things that we do as they are standalone products. Something like ServiceNow ITSM, where there is such a good foundation within a relationship between items and some very good capabilities to extend into our existing automation, workflows and things of that nature, is something that we're definitely looking forward to.

We want to end up getting set up as part of Discovery with a type of automatic relationship. In addition, we have been looking at a means to provide a service catalog experience to the business as a whole and are looking forward to potentially implementing a service portal.

Actually, the biggest problem that I see for it, especially in a smaller organization, is that there are plenty of partners. We've got a fairly advanced IT organization. We do a lot of relatively advanced stuff for the size that we are, but ServiceNow itself is so big and to some extent, there is a significant amount of complexity that you have, a big learning curve I would say, in order to really get on board.

It doesn't mean that you can't attack it in pieces and things like that, but I think one of the problems I've had just in getting involved within the last couple of months, is trying to kind of weed out what I don't necessarily need to look at and focus on, just a specific area and trying to find best practice documentation of that matter is, has been a challenge.

In many cases, it really just doesn't exist. I mean, we know we've got the documentation and everything else, and they tell you all the things that you can do. I mean, again, it's one of these things where I think everybody likes to begin a little better, would like to begin with a template, or some kind of a best practice template given their situation if they can find it, and then, you know, kind of build from there. Because when you're starting just with a completely blank scratch pad, you just don't know where to go.

I think the thing that I've always been concerned with implementing a new product is being able to really spend a proper amount of time upfront with design and making sure I'm designing something that won't limit my choices or my abilities to use it, or will keep me from having to just go back and completely rewrite the whole thing in the future. I've not gotten that comfortability yet with the product and it's after a couple months. There's a huge learning curve with the product.

Also, we have not really had a good view of our different configuration items. 

I don't really think that we're running into too many stability issues.

The product scale's wonderful. We don't have to worry about the scalability and someplace else. Even within our organization, we're not finding really any major issues with scalability and things of that nature.

Most of what we have to just be concerned with is that we almost have too much information. It's like going from having nothing to taking a fire hose worth of information and trying to figure out, "Okay, what do we really maybe not have to pay attention to initially? What are we going to focus on?" I wouldn't say there are any issues with the product right now from the performance and scalability point of view; it's been performing very well.

Altiris is the product we're getting out of. I think there's a lot to be said for actually having a web-hosted solution these days. There are a lot of things you don't want to actually bother to manage yourself internally.

I think because we're starting to look at so many other areas that are potentially out in the cloud, such as we're using Workday for HR, and the potential integrations that we even have from a cloud perspective, once we've got ServiceNow and the ITSM piece of the cloud. Those are, I think, major selling points over just the overall flexibility over what we had in the previous product.

At this point in time, it's interesting because a lot of what I'm seeing, there's a lot of momentum right now towards ServiceNow. It's one of those things amongst everyone, not just in the industry; a lot, all over the place. It's in a major growth mode. I'm not entirely sure they're going to see too many of the other products being able to keep up. It's one of those things; if you're looking at future-proofing yourself, and there's a lot of this, there are a lot of strategies for going with a cloud partner. I realize there are some cloud competitors who have started up out there with ServiceNow. I've heard them infrequently, but it's kind of like, "Do you want to go with the company that's got the most resources and the most money to put toward development of their product, or in something where everybody's focusing on?" You've got a large third-party contingent supporting the product and things of that nature, and more and more development going toward it all the time. Or, "Do you want to go with something where you're not going to get the benefit of that same thing?" I think right now it would be hard to go with anybody else.

Flexible platform to build applications and to extend our service management. We have the normal idle processes we actually implement and ServiceNow provides good value in supporting these processes.

For us it's beneficial because we are switching from a single provider environment to a multi-provider one. We use ServiceNow as a platform and it's described as really flexible. It supports this transformation for us and now we are in the position to deliver our own multi-provider application platform. They are no longer hosted at our providers, so we can switch the provider in an easier and quicker way, and we are in a better position to discuss prices for different services because we can offer the whole platform and framework to our customers.

Last week, we had a discussion with the support leader at ServiceNow, and what we miss a little. ServiceNow is growing really fast, so they have two versions per year, and for a company (or for a large company), I think it's really hard to switch to the next version because you have to migrate and test things. What's not so good for us is also the support for problems and regressions. If we are using an older version and the next version is coming out, we always recognize if we open an incident, that we get an answer which in most cases is to switch to the next version. That is not so good for us because we know that we could switch to the next version but we have to perform a lot of effort that it's not too easy to do that. So basically we're looking for answers other than just go on to the next version.

ServiceNow supports the two version or three version support so if we are in the actual supported version we know that it's really hard to fix something in the current versions because the architecture is different from the new one but we would wish to have more fixes for our versions.

Also, the wiki is good, but it could be a little bit better. It is lacking all the information and could be more in-depth. We are not on the newest version actually, but we will switch this time because the one we're on is not so good. The information about the included features in the next release is lacking.

They said OK in December and we got access and then I received an email with, "Hey Geneva is available." And we were really waiting for that because we would like to upgrade. Then I go into the support system, try to upgrade, and then I get an email which says that I have to wait three days, then I received an email about an hour later, and they said Geneva is available and they have to wait three days before my upgrade can be done. This process should be better.

There were no issues with the deployment.

The instance is always up and running.

We're not running out of space so the platform is cool and it's running. It's good for us because it's in the cloud. We don't have to put effort in to look for things. That is why we decided to choose ServiceNow as a cloud provider.

We have support and so we bought a service and if we are at the end of the space or something like disk space, then I think ServiceNow contacts us to let us know so I have no need to look into that.

You can do a lot of things in different ways and that is why we define some coding guidelines, because the best practice are not enough to restrict some implementation partners or our self to bring implementation. For us it's really important to do that to the GIF guidelines, development restrictions, as it can be too open for us as a company because we would like to have the same result from different implementation partners. Everything works in a different way, you can do it like that or do it like this, but in the end if you have over 200 service catalog items I would like to have them built all the same way and look the same way.

After they're built and it's up and running, you have to maintain them, and if they are difficult in a lot of ways it is difficult and produces a lot of cost because if you have an incident or something else, you have always go deep inside of that and look, "Okay what is going wrong?" This can be prevented with more restrictions and standardisation.

With such a platform you can easily build and really quickly with new applications to help the business do things. We recognize also that you have to build and not grow too fast, because then it becomes a little bit of chaos. We also recognize from our business groups that say, “Oh ServiceNow, we do not have that, can we build that with this? Or that and that?" And you have a lot of demands and requirements you have to handle and maybe you have to block. We would like to have architecture throughout ServiceNow blocked from before we start building such small instances.

ServiceNow is a very good platform, but do not build up things too fast. That's what I'd say, because the problem is recognized from our companies and they say, "It's easy to throw things out into the business." But if you have a role model or such then you have so much effort to implement or rebuild those things during these things are in operational mode. I would say yeah, do it, but not too fast.

The main use case of the product involves providing solutions for customers aiming at enhancing their overall business efficiency and effectiveness in managing IT services and operations.

ServiceNow is easy to use and has a user-friendly interface. It offers broad workflow functionality, including IT, HR, Accounting, and Legal departments. The users can build new business workflows with low code.

The platform price needs improvement. System deployment and automation capabilities could be within the platform, similar to competitors like Ivanti and BMC. At present, we have to rely on third-party products for the same.

I have been using ServiceNow's latest version.

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten.

We have around 1000 ServiceNow users in our organization. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The technical support team is helpful and responsive.

Positive

We are working with Ivanti and BMC Helix.

The complexity of the initial setup can vary based on the size and complexity of the organization implementing it. Including proof of concept, may take around three months or more for large companies and enterprises working in the IT department. The duration can depend on the specific modules being implemented. Setting up a data center and different management processes for seamless operations is crucial. It takes another hour or a week to complete.

We have a dedicated team to maintain the product. The team's strength depends on the specific budget and the number of requests and incidents. At the moment, we have two administrators working on deployment and maintenance.

The product cost is higher than that of other vendors. It depends on the specific requirements. It is suitable for large enterprises.

I rate the pricing a two out of ten.

I rate ServiceNow an eight out of ten. It is a powerful platform and provides essential functionality for different workflows. It is easy to maintain as well.

We are a system implementor and ServiceNow is one of the products that we provide to our clients.

I have customers in the banking and retail industries that I manage using ServiceNow. I primarily use the ITOM module and don't use the ITSM features.

The technical support SLA can be improved because sometimes they take a long time to answer our queries.

I have been working with ServiceNow for five years.

This is a stable platform.

ServiceNow is scalable.

I have been in contact with technical support and I would rate them an eight out of ten. The support is good but the response time can be improved.

ServiceNow is very easy to set up.

The CapEx version is great.

This is a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are using Quebec, which is the latest version of ServiceNow. 

We use ServiceNow as an IT asset and business management solution.

We consider the integration capabilities of the solution with other tools to be a valuable feature. 

The solution should have more of the latest version benefits, of which I have found only a limited number. It is annoying that ServiceNow keeps on changing back to Quebec every six months. Content should be added as soon as it changes. Flushing is upgrading.

I also wish to see new features added occasionally.

The performance analytics and services operation module should be addressed. It should be a free plugin for the recording dashboard. We are often in need of a report, such as how many users are using the service or the per hour platform. But, this requires us to install a new page plugin for a static change. I would find this improvement helpful within the next three days. 

It is a reliable solution. 

The solution is scalable. 

Technical support is responsive. Once a person creates a ticket they get back to him quite quickly. 

The initial setup was straightforward.

The license is on the basis of an annual subscription.

We are happy with the pricing. 

The solution is cloud-based. We make use of an SaaS version. 

Of the many hundreds in our organization who are using the solution, 115 are using ServiceNow practice.  

I rate ServiceNow as an eight out of ten.