ServiceNow Reviews

There are multiple use cases associated with ServiceNow. The major use case is IT service management, incident management, and IT operations management. ServiceNow offers GRC and solutions that integrate with other security systems for cybersecurity. I have been involved in both ITOM and ITSM.

ServiceNow offers a range of ITSM, IT incident management, and PRCPs. The entire platform makes it an excellent product for users. Its capability to manage end-to-end ITSM is necessary because no other competitor is offering such a comprehensive solution.

The utilization of AI in ServiceNow needs enhancement. Their incident management system requires attention. If you examine it closely, there's an extension available in the market for future consideration. ServiceNow is quite advanced in incident management solutions. If ServiceNow aims to improve its incident management capabilities by incorporating AI/ML and other general components, it would advance the product and enhance its use cases, ultimately boosting productivity. This would lead to improved overall value for enterprise customers.

I have been using ServiceNow for eight to ten years.

ServiceNow is a very stable product. I have heard a couple of integration issues in some places.

ServiceNow can be easily scalable. However, scaling down may pose a problem because, if someone has purchased a certain quantity of subscription-based licenses, they cannot be reduced. You have to complete the term of those licenses whether you're scaling down or up.

We cater the solution to enterprise customers.

Our delivery team used to interact with ServiceNow, and they used to receive support from them. They are responsive. Most of the time, issues are resolved. They ensure a smooth delivery process and quick response. In certain complicated situations, such as new integrations where ServiceNow is not supported, there is a lot of email exchanges.

Positive

ServiceNow offers a very comprehensive tool that covers end-to-end IT services and IT operations management. This is where enterprise customers seek an end-to-end solution. ServiceNow is being adopted by numerous customers. I have experience with BMC Solutions.

BMC also provides an IT service management platform called BMC Remedy. Remedy is less comprehensive and user-friendly compared to ServiceNow. I've encountered support and configuration issues with BMC Remedy.

There is a large pool of trained workforce available for ServiceNow. Considering their market share, which exceeds 60%, there are ample skilled resources in the market. ServiceNow technology has been established. I haven't encountered challenges with ServiceNow projects in terms of implementation or configuration wherever I've worked. However, the deployment can vary depending on the company and partner, and how they've structured their practice teams and training resources.

If it's a Greenfield project, then a new deployment is necessary. For enterprise customers, integration becomes the key focus. ServiceNow offers a substantial integration portfolio to address these needs.

Return on investment is good because once the overall comprehensive solution is deployed, it offers a lot of ROI to the end customers. If a customer opts for a point solution to manage their ITSM and adopts different technologies to integrate, it is going to cost them, and then it will add up to their complexity.

The solution is expensive compared to other tools but holds value for money.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Overall, I've been satisfied with the product.

I've found the solution to be scalable.

The stability has been good overall. The performance is reliable. 

It's mostly an intuitive product. It's actually easy to understand. 

Technical support is decent. They are helpful when we have issues. 

The pricing could be lowered. It's pretty high.

We have had a few issues with the Agent Client Collector setup, however, that's probably at our end for some network blocking reason, or something like that.

Their GUI could be updated. It's a little bit old-looking right now. 

I've been using the solution for three or so years now. 

The solution is stable and the performance is good. there aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash. It's reliable. 

The product is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

Technical support has been fine. We are happy with their level of service in general. 

The price is high. However, I don't pay for it. I'm just an employee. I can't speak to the exact costs. That said, I know it's an expensive product.

While we are working with ServiceNow, we are looking into Device42 to see if that could be used for scanning our infrastructure right now.

While I have used ServiceNow for some time, I'm not an expert. I was sort of admin in a previous company where I worked, however, now I'm only, more or less, a user of ServiceNow. I'm a consultant. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten, based on my overall experience. 

One of the things that I've only recently learnt is how flexible it is and how much you can do with it that I wouldn't have thought of. I've only been using ServiceNow for a short time, so it's been great to learn about all the different stuff you can do with it. So definitely consolidating everything and just putting a nice visual interface and a nice visual experience to all the data and information.

Having quick easy access to information is crucial in any business but especially in the medical field. Real-time information that's it easy to understand is critical. In some cases, it could mean life or death for our patients, so just having that readily available and digestible and easy to interpret is critical. We have customized so much, so I think that might have contributed to the learning curve for me, just figuring out where the organization had put things and what terminology they use and where to look for certain things.

In the time that I've been using it, it's been a pretty great experience.

I haven't noticed any major issues. Again, I've only been there for a short period of time.

The entire time I've been here we've been using ServiceNow.

We have customized so much, so I think that might have contributed to the learning curve for me, just figuring out where the organization had put things and what terminology they use and where to look for certain things.

I'd definitely recommend that you take a look and figure out what their needs are really. What are their goals, why are they looking at ServiceNow in the first place, and just go in there and take a look and get a demo or something and just jump in and give it a look.

It's pretty great, especially being at Knowledge 16 where I saw all the different possibilities and all the different things you can do. I'm really excited to take that knowledge and get back to do more cool stuff with it. I'd say coming in I maybe would've said 7/10, but coming out of the event I'd say it's definitely a great product.

It's serving our end-user community, making it simple for them to order products, get service from our incident help desk, and perhaps even helping everyone across the globe because we have to stay connected somehow, and ServiceNow does that for us.

We've just launched the visual task boards in the last year, so we're still learning how to do that effectively. Right now, we're trying to do a comparison of what we do with our internal chat and using the chat inside ServiceNow, so a lot of things that we're still learning, and we're trying to break ground so to speak, so that we can get better.

I think I want to focus in on our assets. We do many things for studios, and internally, we use a lot of hardware, so we want to be able to find and understand where our assets sit. If there's a breakdown in communication, how do we service that? We've recently launched with one of the certified partners. How we do a better job in tracking those assets once it comes on location, and then it gets into the inventory. That's the key piece. It's how do we manage those assets, manage the cost, manage where they are, and make sure people have access to that equipment.

Maybe cost in one sense because when you make that investment from the other side of it, you're looking at the cost, but we've been having that ongoing debate. Empty glass could be your cost, but the full glass or maybe half full, or half empty. If it's half full, that means you're getting great things out of it. If it's half empty, you're so worried about the cost. Where are you going to trim. We're going down the path of, "How do we shape our roadmap so that we understand what that investment is going to do for us?" We're using the Champions Enablement Tool to help us chart that out. We have our own internal tool, and there's a lot of similarities, but I think what we want to do is just channel it the way ServiceNow is intending it to.

We've been on it since Calgary, so we were early adopters. We're currently on Fuji. We will probably move to Geneva probably in the fall.

Recently, we've been working with the support because they've been notifying us that there are certain things that may be slowing down our system. Right away, they've advised us that they have that ability to transition us seamlessly and to help us with our connectivity. There are some complaints internally still that we're trying to wade through, but overall we've been quite happy with it. Connectivity for the most part has been very good.

It's tremendous. Just recently, we rolled out the GRC module. It was specific to one of our security teams. At the moment, it was just to help them with their auditing, how they manage their compliance. Now, the part of the business has gotten wind that this is out there. It was demoed. Now, people are coming to us in that sense.

The Service Catalog continues to grow over a hundred service catalog forms, and people want to get rid of the old email in our office, department envelopes, the email, and the shoulder tapping. Now, we're able to centralize them through the portal. In fact, that's another thing, the portal that we have. We had user issues with the community portal on Eureka.

It was scattered. It was decentralized, so people in their own locations were tracking a certain way or doing things a certain way. Some people had barcoding systems and scanned assets, while other locations were just eyeballing it and logging it onto spreadsheets. We knew there's a problem, and just like the Chief Product Officer is saying, you want to automate where you can, and this is where we want to go.

We went out to go get a certified partner's product and cross-views, and they've helped us really just make it look and feel more friendly than when now you look at Helsinki, it's like right in alignment of where we are today and where we want to continue to go, so those are the other things that we have to weigh out.

I wasn't part of that implementation team. I came in to really get the program together because we had our enterprise architect team implement it. However, I think the guys had fun implementing it because they were looking forward to actually getting it in place, start using it, and start deploying it. 

Upgrades through the years have been pretty tough. We didn't get the sandbox right away, so it made hard on our users where we have to do all the testing and make sure we understand the differences between out of the cloud versus what we did with custom development. That took just a little bit longer in analysis and testing implementation.

First question I would ask is, "What are you waiting for? You've described to me all your problems that you're having. You're decentralized. You're disparate. You have all these things that are hanging out there. You don't have a way to communicate essentially through people. Come on board."

I took the governance class. It was a day and a half, and I sat at a table with people that had the same problems. We had a new implementation in the two months prior. We have someone that's on a competitor's application, and they've already made the decision to come in ServiceNow, but it took the management team to say, "Hey, we need to do this. We got to get better at what we're doing." Really, it's all practical in the sense of filling the need, and it's making it simple not only for the end-user, but if you saw the key note today, the backend where the developers and the systems. It's going to be really helpful for everyone.

It's right from our own internal processes, and matching staffing needs, and meeting the customers' needs, and then also ServiceNow coming in where cost has to be helpful to us. We know the platform is there.

The flexibility of the platform, being able to modify forms or modify workflow, building applications, utilizing basics that they've given you and being able to expand them to adapt to your own personal environment. Everybody says that "This isn't how ITIL works" or "You shouldn't be doing this." I'm like, "But ITIL is a framework, that's the whole point of it" so that you can ingest what you need within your environment. The product is malleable. You can change it around to do what you need to do. If you need certain configuration items or certain categories or certain subcategories, you can make it work for your environment.

I think the value comes from centralizing processes across business units. I've seen it where we started in IT and then we've brought in teams like library functions or secretarial support, security auditing for cybersecurity needs, making sure that your meeting a new type of governmental regulations, and things of that nature. I think it's not about just utilizing it in one particular business area. It's something that can be used across departments and I think that's what's best about it.

I think that the product has grown considerably over the last few years. Initially, I had some issues with just ease of use. I was on Fuji before I started at my current employer. I came in and they're on Geneva. Between Fuji and Geneva, it's just total rework of just the way that the UI looks. I think it's more appealing to the eye. I think that it is easier to use than it used to be. A lot of the having to code and having to know how to use java and all that kind of stuff just wasn't as easy for us non-coding type of individuals. Now that you have like the little point and click and more non-coding development, it's much better.

I think more progression like on the visual task boards. There are some things that are there that seem a little quirky. If you want to move something to a visual task board and when you go into it, it can't really update it in the fashion that I would like to see. You have to click on the number and then it opens up another form. I think a little easier updating processes to their visual task board.

I think a little bit more ease of when you're using the email flow. If I'm emailing something into the primary email address for ServiceNow that it could parse out particular things from the content of the email instead of just from the to or from or the subject line. That would be something that would be a value add.

Deployment, no. I don't think it's really deployment, I think it's more of individuals just getting used to if they're not used to something like ServiceNow. Getting used to the way that ServiceNow works. The concept of ServiceNow users and just getting to understand "Can you have notifications for this?" or "Do you want notifications for this?" Those types of things. I think it's hard when users are going through change whenever to modify something and then they take that grace period where they can get used to something new.

Not in the newer versions. I would say that years ago before ServiceNow really went through a big development of backend data infrastructures and fault tolerance. Today, I haven't really seen any of those types of things.

It's actually pretty easy. When you have a new IT person that comes in, you put them in the appropriate groups, you should sit them down, you kind of explain your process flow and how to utilize it. I think one of the easiest things with ServiceNow is the fact that when you log in, you're in groups and if you go to incident, my work, there's all of your work right there. Then the reporting function, it just takes it to the next level because you can go in and say, "Well, this might be my work, but how many things have I closed or opened?" or "What do I have pending?" Just different things that you can do with it to understand.

At my previous firm, we used Remedy. My current firm previously used something called HiQ Tracker or something like that.

There were other products that have been used before, but mostly IT wants to go into making sure we're using the best framework, ITIL framework, ITIL processes, making sure that you're using metrics and tracking and understanding where all of your resources are being utilized across your infrastructure so that you can get the best value out of the people that you have on staff.

For me, it was easy. I would say that for some individuals who are not very exposed to ITIL concepts, it can be very hard because they've never been exposed to the whole language, that whole concept, and framework of your problem, incident, and change. Most people, if they've never used ServiceNow before, continue to call incidents, tickets or calls or cases. For some of them to get used to the language, I think that that's where the implementation can get a little hard for individuals and they can get a little frustrated because not everyone is on the same language.

If you're really wanting to understand the time and the effort and the amount of work that flows through your organization, utilizing ServiceNow can help you really build that infrastructure out by tracking incidents and then taking incidents to problems and making sure you have a changed infrastructure, really understand how much downtime you could have with an environment. You can understand how much time the service desk is spending per call, how long your engineers are taking to really resolve a larger issue or deploy an upgrade. From building those processes and then having metrics and KPIs and dashboards, your executive management can really see how much time and effort and if you need more resources within your environment. I was able to show that I needed more staffing just from using reports out of ServiceNow and I was able to show how much of incident climbed within our environment and the gap between two years before and how large we had grown, just an incident processing. Showing how much downtime within our infrastructure had occurred and were we meeting downtime, requirements from our SLAs and organizational requirements.

I think I've been using it for nine years. I think it has changed considerably over the nine years and has gotten much, much better. You can't give something a 10 because there's always room for improvement.

I'd say auditing, asset tracking, following tickets, and making sure what our employees are doing. The ticketing system though is what we rely on most. I'm able to follow what my co-workers are doing so we're not stepping on each other's toes. This enables us to be as productive as possible.

Compared to HPE Service Manager, ServiceNow offers a lot more customizations and a lot more plug-ins that you can throw in there. I'd just say it has a better ability to customize, and developers can get in and get dirty.

It has a good document repository which translates into a good knowledge base with good articles. Looking at tickets, charts, and the dashboard. Seeing what everyone's working on - it's cool.

To have this external facing site, we can pretty much face talk any customer we need to. They can log into a single portal using single sign on, which means they can use the same account to log into their machines and our environment. Sending tickets to a central location. Being able to track those tickets to see where their requests and incidents are in the process.

Just ease of use for people who aren't very technically savvy. Sometimes it does take a lot of customization to make it easier for the user to use but for someone who's technical, it's pretty straightforward.

I actually worked with a smaller team with Optum that does POCs and we've actually been proving out ServiceNow for about four years. Now they are up the street we call it, the greater organisation is implementing the same thing using HPE Service Manager. I think their goal live date is July this year.

They're always very functional about updates and patching.

The fact that it's tied directly into LDAP means that it's great. I don't think there's a limit.

It depends how deep you want to go. You can use it for pretty much for anything. I wasn't involved in the implementation of it, but from a management perspective, it's pretty sweet.

I would say that it's just very straightforward. You want your users to have a good experience. With ease of use, I'd say it's perfect.

For me I believe it would have to be the real time reporting capabilities that it has, as well as the knowledge management features as far as reporting. We're just getting kicked off with trying to push knowledge management out into the organization. It's important to get a read on how it's being accepted as well as what's being used and how we can improve upon it in real-time.

I believe because it has so many different pieces to it and they're all interconnected, they're all interrelated. As you know, in IT everything relies on everything else. That fact alone that the CMDBs in the middle and everything feeds into it and comes out of it. That alone is an essential piece to the strategy.

Look at the cost savings that's there for it, the capability. So many companies nowadays want to make sure that they're on an ITIL compliant platform and ServiceNow is definitely that platform. I'd have to say that's one of the big business drivers. If you merge with another company, you've got an immediate capability to include them and bring them on board.

I think within knowledge management the editor could be greatly improved. To me it's very archaic looking. One of the issues is when you go to pull a document in there - we're talking about knowledge, we're talking about how to do something in many cases. It doesn't do numbered lists very well. As soon as you put a picture in it starts your numbering over. I don't know if there's something wrong with our implementation or it's just out of the box. We have it set up out of the box. That's one of the downsides. In general I hear a lot of people say that the interface from a back end. From the folks that have the IT role, it's not a pretty picture.

Myself here with this organization I've used it for about two years, and with other organizations on and off for about two years plus. Currently, we're on Geneva.

We've had a little bit of slowness at times. We're looking into the heart of that and I think that maybe some of that is maybe our implementation. The way we've gone about setting up database calls and things like that. It's hard to say. I can't really speak to that because I'm not working so much with that group. Occasionally, depending on the implementation I've seen it always run smooth and fast.

Other times we have to deal with the internet is right in the middle because it's cloud based. You never know if that's the reason for the lateness. Overall it's a great product.

Well from what I understand I can't speak to that really well. It seems quite scalable. I know other companies that are much larger than ours that have had an excellent implementation. I was in a talk where the gentleman was from a large company that had a huge investment in it, and they were using it across four hundred and fifty thousand employees or something huge.

In my past lives they have used Remedy as well as HP Service Desk at the time. At a previous company, I helped to implement HP Service Desk.

I don't know how it has been here, but in other places it's been a very straightforward and simple implementation. What it really requires is all the pre-work. If you're going to implement it you want to have an understanding of what you're stakes are. For example, in incident management. What the teams are going to do. What the processes are going to be worked out within the tool. That's an important aspect. A lot of people may think that you implement a tool and you have it. It's not that simple. You have to do a lot of work before you implement to make sure you have your processes in place.

One of the things important, if you're going to put new processes in it, have them written down and have them well understood and well documented before you implement it in the tool. Once you implement in a tool, that's when you can really start to improve on it. If you just go forward and put it in a tool and you don't have any documented process then you're back to square one. You don't know what you're improving and you're making changes and it's not a pretty picture.

We have a young lady who's very adept and she's moving forward with that. Making great things happen.

Make sure you have your processes well defined before you go to implement a tool because that's where you're going to get your real payoff. It's going to really help you improve things if you have all that well documented, well understood before you have it implemented. I think that's the biggest thing.

I think that they could do a lot better on thr interface. Especially for the back end because we can build all kinds of- there's all kinds of companies out there that create all these things. At some point you would think that they want to improve these certain aspects of it that- like knowledge management.

Microsoft Teams integration is available. Notifications are present within the virtual agent chatbot, integrated with third-party tools. All the portal features have been enabled, including the virtual agent installation.

There is a concern about the integration point of view, particularly the virtual agent. Currently, we are working on integration with Teams and the virtual agent. Now, the chatbot and portal are available. A pop-up message shows the redactions button if you click on anything in the chatbot conversations. This redirects to the portal. It should open, and the virtual agent should be integrated that way.

I have been using ServiceNow as a partner for two years.

There are some bugs in the solution.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

The solution is slow in performance level.

Technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup is simple. It takes only eight hours for each resource because of integration and conversation flow.

From a developer's perspective, understanding the pricing of ServiceNow is crucial. Currently, pricing details are mainly available for account-related matters. However, if developers also have access to this information, it would greatly benefit them.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.