ServiceNow Reviews

Most of our tickets go through ServiceNow.

Any tickets that we need to open in order to interact with other teams and make things happen go through ServiceNow. 

When I need to create an AWS account, I use ServiceNow. I need to use ServiceNow to request a new machine. 

We use ServiceNow for everything that requires us to interact with other teams.

They use it for internal communication across all departments.

What I believe works well is the chain of tasks that occurs when you follow up after completing a task. The subsequent chain of tasks, I believe, is valuable.

The interface, in my opinion, is not very good. It's very unclear where the status is and what steps I need to take next. I don't think the layout is very good.

The interface requires an upgrade. I'm not sure if I'm using the most recent version, which could be the issue. However, I don't have control over which versions we use, and I do find the interface to be very cumbersome, there is a lot of information here, and it's difficult to find what you are looking for. 

I find myself occasionally looking at the request and wondering if I already approved it or not because the status is a little strange. It's not great.

It's not very intuitive.

I interact with ServiceNow quite a bit. I have been using it for eight years.

ServiceNow is relatively stable. I haven't noticed any problems with stability.

I believe it scales well, but I'm not sure. I'm not familiar with the back end or how it's set up.

It performs well, I have never had any problems with performance.

The company employs over 40,000 people. I'm going to say that the majority of people will need to use it, or maybe half of them use ServiceNow extensively.

I've never had any contact with technical support.

Black Duck, Veracode, and SonarQube are some of the tools we use.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup because it was already in place when I joined the organization.

I've heard that some of its features are difficult to implement. I've never done it myself, but from what I've heard from other teams, it takes a long time to create a full flow. It's not quite that easy.

We have a team that handles updates, patches, and fixes.

I would rate ServiceNow a seven out of ten.

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.

Originally when we first rolled out, it was obviously the fact that we had full IT service management in one area. We were extremely scattered and had many different tools all over the place and none of them were integrated. That was our initial sell feature for us.

As time has gone on and ServiceNow has evolved and matured, we are loving the ease of the product. Each year, each version, each release they come out with is all that much more configurable for us. One of the biggest things for us is the fact that we've had the opportunity to be a partner with them and have had the opportunity to have some input and feedback on their product to begin with and have seen some of that that have come to fruition. In fact, I just saw a demonstration and there were several things that I know were a part of suggesting and the input that they received from their customers.

I hadn't really thought much beyond the improvements that I'm seeing that they're putting out in Helsinki. My organization is currently on the Fuji release. We were going to be upgrading to the Geneva release in July. One of the things we were coming here [to Knowledge16] specifically to look at is jumping on the release and going straight from Fuji to Helsinki. Considering some of the things that I just saw that they rolled out, I'm going to be pushing pretty hard for that.

Many of the things that we felt needed a little bit more shoring up was their CMBD product and their discovery, they seem to have covered that in the Helsinki release. I'm not really thinking of what the next step is going to be at this point. I was wowed with Helsinki, so at this point I'm looking forward to rolling that in and working with it.

We implemented it back in 2011.

I like the scalability of it. We need an instance that we will have it within 24 hours. In fact, we have several instances in the Cloud. We have our production instance, we have a test instance, and we have four development instances.

I'm not necessarily involved in the day to day support that we would have to reach out to. Our architect is more involved with that. However, I do know that I have been the contributor of a few of the bugs that have been found. They seem to be very responsive, work with our developer and our architect team and work through the issues.

When we started out, we did it in phases. Our very first phase was the change management application in a very condensed version of the incident management application. Phase two rolled out in late 2014. At that point, we went to a full incident management application. We revamped our change management application, rolled out problem service catalog, discovery, our CMDB. We have quite a few, some 38, applications that are currently turned on. They were pretty basic and we've been over the years developing and expanding those.

I'd have to say it's the CMDB. When we first started our project it was a security focused project, and what we wanted to do was bring in all of the assets that we have on our network and know where they are and what they're connected to. That was one of the first things that we went live with in December 2015, and it was the big benefit right out of the gate, the CMDB and out of discovery.

We didn't really have a good handle on where our assets were, the state of them, what software was installed, things like that. We had a very disparate group, the telecom group had their spreadsheets, the Unix group had their MySQL database, the Intel team had their Windows Server database, and it wasn't in one location. This brought everything into a single location so we could see how our business applications were related to servers, switches, and firewalls.

From us it started with the security perspective, so we're a regulated utility, so we have requirements under various Federal guidelines, so we need to respond quickly to various CERT advisory, government advisories for security events. We needed to be able to determine what applications, what servers, what work stations had these issues that were in the CERT advisory and so we needed to respond to that quickly. That is the real business benefit for us right now for the product.

I would have to say that the documentation on the knowledge site can sometimes be very confusing.

They had suggestions for how we could do certain things, and I guess what I was expecting was ServiceNow to push - since ServiceNow can do so much. I can code it to do anything that I want, and so the issue was that they should have pushed back more and said, well, that really isn't how you should do it, you should do it this way. It was more, "OK that sounds good" and they let us do something that we shouldn't have done, and then it bit us, so we ended up having to come back and we ended up doing basically our own home-grown SDLC process in the system through requests, and we're on version 3.25 of that. It just took us three months longer than it did to implement change. It was a struggle.

We have. We implemented some various complex ACLs and they've impacted our performance significantly, and we've had several incidents open to help with performance, and it's been kind of a struggle to get the ServiceNow support group to say "Yup, I see it's a problem, let's do this." Eventually they say "Oh yeah, it is." They've upgraded our incidence, they've added indexes to certain tables and things like that, it's just been a struggle, two to three months of constant back and forth to get our performance and our production instance the way that we want it.

We only have about 250 users, so other than that we haven't rolled out it to our 5000 employees yet, that's going to be in August, and that's going to be for incident problem and knowledge. So far for IT it's OK, other than those slight performance issues that we've had.

We have not used a solution at all, so this was the first.

Honestly, if we wouldn't have gone as far outside the box as we did, it would have been really easy. Change was actually the easiest thing that we've done, and doing the configuration management stuff, the auto-discovery, I would say that we had a great approach. We decided to go discovery by class of device, Unix servers, Cisco switches things like that, and we had a 13 to 14 week process to go - it was like September, October we began, and in December we had our CMDB pretty much good to go with our 6500 servers, workstations, and Cisco devices and it was actually functional in December in about four months. Which according to ServiceNow, is a rare thing. Not a lot of people get it that complete within four months.

We actually had ServiceNow as our consultants. The way that the consultants at ServiceNow approached our implementation of change in request, we actually had to redo it a couple of times because there are so many different ways you can approach change in request items, in the catalogues themselves, that we ended up having to do two or three different redesigns to get to what we wanted. I guess I was kind of expecting when we implemented with ServiceNow that they would know the platform inside and out and they would have a "this is the way that you should do it", and that was actually kind of a shortcoming that I had in the implementation. That was kind of a shortcoming for us. Love the product, but it was just that the development phase was a rocky three months that we had.

It's a great platform but it's so open that you can get bogged down pretty quickly in trying to make all of your customers happy. I would stress try to keep it out of the box, vanilla as possible, and you'd actually be a little bit happier, let the system do what it's supposed to do. I really like it, I really, really do. There's a lot there. We've struggled on some things, but I think overall it's a great platform for our company.

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.

ServiceNow can be deployed for everything, in terms of ITSM, CSM, facilities management, HR, financials, CMDB, asset management, and orchestration. You name it. It's really used for everything.

What I found most valuable in ServiceNow is that it's a cloud-based platform, so people won't need to worry about investing on hardware to host it. Being a cloud-hosted platform also means ServiceNow is available 24x7 on any internet-connected device. You can also try the platform for free by grabbing a free developer instance from the ServiceNow website.

Customization, data import and export, and data backup are also features I found most valuable in ServiceNow.

There's always a room for improvement in terms of the ServiceNow UI. For customers, the UI is something that is a continuous improvement, so the UI would be the only thing in the platform that needs improvement.

I've been a partner of ServiceNow for three years now.

ServiceNow is a stable platform.

ServiceNow is a scalable platform.

I find the technical support for ServiceNow good. It's rock solid.

The initial setup for ServiceNow was straightforward.

I don't have the numbers on the ROI from ServiceNow, but we have experienced ROIs from some of our customers ranging between six months and one year, depending on the models they have.

I'm dealing with the new version of ServiceNow: San Diego, and I'm also dealing with its previous version: Rome.

I find ServiceNow a solid platform, and I can't think of any area for improvement. If anything, the San Diego version is even better than the Rome version, and Rome has been solid, so I wouldn't change anything about ServiceNow.

The maintenance of the platform is automatic, but for maintenance in terms of fixing or reconfiguring things inside ServiceNow, we offer professional services for that. For maintaining one project, we need 10 dedicated maintenance personnel, out of the 21 maintenance personnel we have within our company.

My advice to anyone looking into implementing ServiceNow is "Go for it", especially because the platform does everything. ServiceNow is a system of record. It's really everything, e.g. everything is a record today. A ticket is a record, an asset is a record, a bill or an invoice is a record. Everything is a record in a giant database.

The platform is also cloud-based, so people don't even need to think about investing on hardware to host the platform. The platform is hosted on cloud, so it's available 24x7, on any device that has an internet connection, e.g. laptops, computers, mobile phones, etc.

If people need to try ServiceNow, they can enter the developer mode in servicenow.com, and just grab a free developer instance for a couple of weeks and give it a try at no cost. ServiceNow is a no-brainer.

I cannot think of anything that needs to be improved in the platform, because if there is something that ServiceNow does not do out of the box, it offers a way or a means for you to build it from scratch in the application builder. Even if the platform would not offer something commercially available to be deployed with no hassle, e.g. without the need for building it by yourself, or programming it by yourself, or hiring someone to do it for you, it has the means to create it almost codeless. It already has sufficient customizations. It has data import and export, including data backup features. I cannot think of anything that ServiceNow cannot do at the moment.

I'm rating ServiceNow nine out of ten, only because I never give a ten to anything.

We use this solution for handling help desk tickets and tasks.

I like the workflow functions that are available in ServiceNow and the ability to actually integrate all of the information that you have such as travel tickets or assignment tickets for your team, onto your dashboard, depending on your setup, or if you create a ticket and a dashboard for your team.

When you update them in one place, it will show you updates in other places. 

I like that functionality.

ServiceNow has more capability and the ability to integrate other solutions such as Excel or tables.

You can put information in or export it out quickly, which is very useful when you have weekly or monthly reports.

When it comes to changing some of the features, I would like a little more leeway.

This may not apply to every version but there are certain capabilities that you have to specifically order a la carte in order for the developers or your administrators to have access.

Having more integration without having to pay the a la carte, otherwise, you have to put in a ticket and have it approved, and if not you have to find a workaround for the solution.

I have been working with ServiceNow for five years.

We are using the most up-to-date version.

I definitely like the scalability, because if you have a small company or if you have a large enterprise, It allows you to tailor it.

The scalability of it is very good and putting it on the server, makes it very useful.

Their technical support was overall helpful. 

A lot of it ended up actually being directed to the administration. ServiceNow developers and any support issues primarily go to them. 

When I was researching to implement ServiceNow for another group, I contacted technical support and they were extremely helpful.

They set up meetings and were willing to talk through everything, to help us meet or help answer questions for our stakeholders.

It was very easy to set up. It was very easy to make sure things were activated.

Once you get the base up, it's easy to start to build out.

There are templates that are available, and you also have the ability to create your own.

It's very quick to implement.

The cost is the only area that I have never been privy to. 

I know that the price is not too bad because people continue to use it and they are happy to renew their contract. But I've never been given the actual cost of it.

I would recommend that they have a meeting with their salesperson and go through the demo that they offer. I also recommend that they have their administrators or the people that are going to use it, sign up for the ServiceNow training that they offer. 

Those are the two things that I definitely recommend before they use it. Other than that, it's really integrated.

I still have my ServiceNow login where I can go to a test site and test things out before we put them into real production.

I would rate ServiceNow an eight out of ten.

We build out video knowledge bases, how-to knowledge bases for self-service support and agent use. We integrate into a number of different ticketing systems, service management platforms, helpdesk platforms, and call center systems.

We are a ServiceNow partner and we have a ServiceNow instance. We use it for ticketing support, ticketing systems. It has worked really well for what we do.

We have set a standard around the way we build content. We have found that if we build for ServiceNow, it will pretty much import anywhere. The format is very similar. ServiceNow seems to be more of a standard interface and their knowledge import specs are pretty consistent with everything else. We have had a few we have had to tweak but, generally, if we build it for ServiceNow, in a lot of cases we can take a ServiceNow file and import it into any other system and it will work fine. That's the biggest benefit.

The biggest feature is that it is cloud-based, so it's always updated, it's always current. We don't have to worry about patches, revisions. We're always working with the latest version.

The features continue to improve. We get new features and we can choose to turn them on or not, but we're always getting them. That is part of the program.

Some enhancements to the self-service platform would be helpful. That part is still a little barebone. There are some things that they could do better that we have suggested to them.

Also, the mobile app is not bad, but it's limited. They are going to be working on that, I'm sure, over the years.

It seems to be very solid. We have not run into any errors or problems, although we're not a very heavy user. If somebody was processing thousands of tickets a day, maybe they would run into something, but for us, it's solid. There are no issues at all.

It seems to be able to accommodate any number of clients, agents, admins. We're a small company, so we don't stress it very much with the number we have in the platform. But everything that I see there, I think it will go. They have large, global corporations working on it, so I think it's pretty solid. That is what I've seen, but not what I've experienced.

Their technical support is very good. We're in the partner program so we have a different development program. We access a different group within support compared to the support a regular client would access. When we need help, the people we work with are very good. Things get resolved, things don't linger.

First, decide what your processes need to be. Determine what your environment needs, what's important, what your priorities are, what your process methodology is, and find a platform to fit that. If you are trying to find a platform and you don't go through that exercise first, you're just tying yourself up in knots. If you choose the platform first, then you are going to match your processes to the platform. If you haven't been through a process, an internal system environmental analysis, to see how things work and what you need, you'll never be happy and you'll wind up changing platforms every couple of years or every time your CIO changes.

When selecting a vendor the most important criteria for us are that they

• are cloud-based
• have ongoing development
• provide API capability so we can integrate whatever we need.

There has to be the ability to write APIs as you need them, so you can hook in whatever you need to connect to it.

I would rate ServiceNow at eight out of 10. They're good but they can get better. From what we've seen, they are making improvements, they listen to feedback. They're not sitting still, they continuing to evolve, continuing to develop, add features, add capacity.