ServiceNow Reviews

It acts as a one-stop shop for customers to be able to go in and create instant problem tickets if the incident is severity one or two. But basically, it's a one-stop shop because beforehand we were using multiple ticketing systems, mainly by email. So now instead of having that we just have them go in, log a ticket, and then its assigned to whatever group and whatever the group it's assigned to goes ahead and takes care of it.

We were doing our user on-boarding via email, and it involved a lot of emails going back and forth. Now, it's just a ticket. Our security team gets provisioning tasks. You can log an instance, use a service catalog, we have provisioning. It's just as important for them to go to one place. On a macro level it helps us do things more efficiently.

I can't wait until we get to Helsinki and such. There are some cool things that I have seen. Portal. The drag and drops which we currently don't have with Fuji.

We've been using it for three years, and we're currently on Fuji patch 3. I'm in the process of fixing our patching problems because there were some issues. Once I get it done, I will go ahead and bump us up to Fuji, patch 12 or so. Then we have a project where we are going to simplify our system, and we have a lot of customization so we are going to kind of try to go back out of the box.

They wanted a ticket to where the customer would see a general global ticket and not have to go through and see if it was an incident or a general request or whatever. And this one particular ticket and the way they have it set up is fairly complicated. They didn't use global tables that should have been used, they customized it and now we are having issues. So we are going to try to get it back to where it is a more simple thing and this should make it more stable.

The system admin. We have another guy that's our business analyst. But we have around 20,000 people in the company. Its global, so everyone is using it well we hope everyone is using it. We've added the catalog, we've made it global within the last year. So we have North America, Australia, Northern Europe and Central Europe. And we're hoping our European people are using it as well as Australia. But there used to be a lot of emails and stuff bouncing back and forth rather than using catalog.

We were using ChangeGear which was kind of limiting. We're a global company now. I don't know, I wasn't in on the why we changed but I know that we were using ChangeGear now before Service Now and it just wasn't suited to our needs.

I think that the way they set up global ticket there was a lot of development, so fairly complex. If they had not done all the customizations, it would have been a lot better, a lot easier and more straightforward.

I would recommend it. I would recommend not doing a lot of client scripts. Not doing a lot of customization. Stick with the out of the box, it's easier to upgrade, easier to implement. The people who are behind the scenes like I am need to go and find things in the Wiki. It's much easier to find, to fix that type of thing.

I've really enjoyed working with it, and I guess it's just the way we have things set up. It's a little frustrating not being able to find things, all the stuff I have to go through to get things fixed.

• Flexibility to do what I need to do. 
• The ability to automate what processes need to be automated. 
• Makes it easier for my users to be able to do things. 
• By coding you can go in and change it to whatever you want to do. You make it yours. Whereas, I've used some systems that you get it and that's it.

It gives our users the ability to do things they weren't doing before. We can get rid of several other systems, replace it with ServiceNow. I don't know exact dollar amounts for what they replaced with ServiceNow, but it's more than what I make.

Some of the issues that my team has run into are that something one day works completely fine, the next day it does not. If we release a patch, something happens, and it was working fine now. No recollection in any documentation anywhere about changing, but it doesn't work now. It's always something ServiceNow has changed, but neglected to tell anybody of the change. There's a lot of processes that were working when ServiceNow was implemented but aren't really as beneficial now.

I've been using for four years, and are currently on Fuji Patch 10 in the process of upgrading to Patch 12. Then we're looking at two different things right now. We may go to Geneva, but there's also talk of completely redoing ServiceNow and going straight to Helsinki. We might just redo the entire instance, skip Geneva and start with Helsinki.

There were no issues with the deployment.

Every clone release has been pretty seamless. We had one issue with one patch, but that was due to IE issues. It wasn't compatible before IE9 and some of our users were still on IE8, though they weren't supposed to be.

It's been able to scale for our needs.

The last thing I used before ServiceNow was HPE Service Desk and Remedy. Those are the only two other ones I've really used. I've seen other ones demoed and stuff, but they were not as flexible. I guess I've used SAP too.

I currently go to school too, which is at NKU in northern Kentucky and they use a SAP type product. I can't remember what it's called, but it's just not very functional.

I was not part of my current company's implementation, but with a previous one and their parent company, I was part of their implementations and it was pretty seamless, other than political issues.

Try to do as much as you can out of the box. Use as much out of box parts of it as you can. Development does come in handy, makes it scalable, and makes it more usable, but use as much out of the box as you can. That's the best advice I can give you.

The best thing is that when you patch and something's working one day, you patch and it's not working the next after you've tested and tested and tested and it's not working. Also, there's the fact that there are things that are changed that people are not notified about.

We used ServiceNow for various functions like incident management, ITSM (information technology service management), and we also used it for CMDB (configuration management database).

I worked for a manufacturing company and we were using ServiceNow for managing the company's IT functions, particularly for ITSM.

In my current company, we use it for CMDB.

I found the reporting capabilities of ServiceNow really valuable.

The service catalog feature is also interesting, particularly because it is highly customizable. You can create anything you want to create. This is one of the good things I like about ServiceNow.

Its integration capabilities is also a valuable feature because you can connect ServiceNow with any other application.

What could be improved in ServiceNow is the response time or loading time. It's slower, but it could be based on the license you have. Everybody here in our company says it is slow whenever we access it, so that needs improvement.

The user interface can also be improved. They should make it better than what it is currently. It should be more user-friendly.

An additional feature I'd like to see in ServiceNow has something to do with its out of the box pattern. Currently, I'm using it mainly for CMDB. Each company will have different hardware or configuration items, but ServiceNow only provides certain scripts or patterns to discover all these onto the CMDB.

If there's any new device, we'll need to customize the out of the box pattern, so maybe that's a feature that can be improved. With any device you add, everything should be added on the CMDB using whatever out of the box pattern or script is provided in ServiceNow. Currently, that is not the case.

If we have a new device that is added to our company's network, we have to go and customize the existing ServiceNow pattern to discover that device. This is the problem we're facing.

I've been using ServiceNow for two years.

This tool is stable. It performs well, but like I mentioned, its response time can be improved, but overall, it's good. It's reliable.

I find this tool easy to scale.

Every now and then, we'll face some issues with scripting, pattern, etc. We always go to the HI portal which is the maintenance portal of ServiceNow, and there we ask for support by raising a ticket to ServiceNow directly.

The support is not 100% good, because sometimes we experience delays in their responses, but it's okay. It's not bad. They'll see to it that they resolve the issues, but it may not always be on time.

We used BMC Remedy, but since we were using a very old version, we can't compare it to ServiceNow. ServiceNow is a lot better and more user-friendly compared to that tool.

For large-scale companies, the cost of ServiceNow is not expensive, but for small and mid-scale companies, it is higher. I worked with large organizations and they never had a problem with the cost, so it depends on how large the company is.

I evaluated BMC Remedy.

I'm using the latest version of ServiceNow.

I was not involved in the initial setup of ServiceNow, whether in my previous or in my current company. I do not know much about it, but how easy or complex the setup is will depend on the company. If it is a large-scale company, the initial setup would be complex and it'll take a lot of time.

Even if it's deployed on cloud, it would still require maintenance. We just purchase the licenses and initially during deployment and training, they'll help. After that, it depends on the company to manage and maintain the solution. If we get into any issues, we'll definitely need to reach out to them.

We are 1,000 people in IT, so we have 1,000 IT users of ServiceNow. As for end users, we have between 30 to 40,000 employees in the company, and at least 30,000 employees will submit a request or incident using ServiceNow. We're using this tool on a daily basis.

I don't think there is any additional costs, as support is covered in the standard fees, but I could be wrong, as I was not involved in the initial setup or financial discussion, so I wouldn't know much about it.

My advice to others looking into using ServiceNow is that they can do their research and ensure that this platform is the one they're looking for. If after reading all the information and comparing different ITSM options available, they find that ServiceNow suits their business, then they can go for it. They should not go for it blindly, because there could be many others which are better than this solution. They should research well before they make their decision.

My score for ServiceNow is a seven out of ten.

We use this solution mostly for ITSM, but we also have customers who use it for customer service management and item discovery.

The features I found most valuable in this solution are usually also found on other platforms like the Visual Task Boards.

For change management, I find the CAB workbench very useful. I haven't seen any other solution that has a CAB workbench or advanced automated solutions for a change advisory board. That's one of the perks of ServiceNow. Other perks include the Visual Task Boards and the Virtual Agent. ServiceNow also has the Workflow Engine which works very well and is very intuitive. Some of the development tools give you a lot of freedom in terms of changing processes. That's what we like.

This solution needs to be improved for global use. Currently, it's very oriented to the processes and needs of the US customer base, like their compliance solution or GRC (Governance, Risk, and Compliance), and not so much for customers from other parts of the world. Some users may like the things that ServiceNow is improving, but those are very oriented to users based in the United States and Europe.

In Latin America which is the geographical region we work in, it's not very useful. Some of the customers are more interested in other solutions. Sometimes they put aside ServiceNow because it is focused on the needs of the customer base in Europe and the US. This is one of the disadvantages I see.

Another disadvantage is the level of maturity that the customer has to have to get value from a solution like ServiceNow. The customer needs to have a great level of maturity. A company that is starting its journey with ITSM wouldn't find ServiceNow very useful, because sometimes there's a considerable amount of code you need to know to be able to implement ServiceNow. This will depend on the complex needs that a customer may have, for the customer to find ServiceNow as a useful solution. Depending on the level of maturity they have, they would need that amount of customization. I don't see the need for coding as a problem. The problem I see is that the level of maturity that the customer needs to have is high.

There's quite a lot of features in ServiceNow. Currently, we haven't had any sort of need that ServiceNow and the features that they already have, don't resolve. There's no feature that I can think of right now that I'd like to be added in the next release.

There are some guidelines that ServiceNow has that automate the implementation, but they're available only for ITSM and ITOM. It would be good if those automated guidelines are also made available for other ServiceNow solutions like customer service management, configuration management, and asset management.

Another area for improvement is the lack of clarity in terms of how this solution is licensed. It is usually very complicated for customers to know how they are being charged for the licenses that they consume. In most of the ServiceNow solutions, this problem is persistent.

There might be some bias because we are ServiceNow partners and we're also Freshworks partners. We're not users. We're partners. We implement both solutions for customers.

We used cloud-based deployment.

We've been working with ServiceNow for quite some time.

I evaluated BMC.

Some of the customers are interested in Acquire when they think of ServiceNow.

My advice to others looking into implementing ServiceNow is for them to really know what the objective of the implementation is: what they're trying to fix and what problem they're trying to solve. They have to be very conscious of these things because if they are not, the solution may not be a good fit. It's going to be too big of a problem to solve. They need to have a high level of maturity to get everything they need from a platform like ServiceNow.

I'm rating this solution a nine out of ten.

We use the solution primarily for IT Operations Management, SLA and ordinary day-to-day operations. We also use it for business dashboards and different groups within the company.

I like the solution very much. The majority of customers use it. It is one of the best, the most apt solution the industry has to offer. It is stable, scalable and easy to use. 

The total ITSM package offers availability, performance and scalability. 

I think the tool has matured sufficiently over the past six years that I do not see room for improvement. It comes with in-built capabilities and it is up to us to use it as we see fit. I would say it meets nearly every use case of ours. 

While we consider the solution to be fine, a weakness of it is that it is not on-premises. 

Security and privacy issues should be addressed in respect of the IT operations data and data storage. They should not be on a shared infrastructure, but on the SaaS in isolated storage. The solution should offer better security when it comes to storing data. 

We have been using ServiceNow for quite some time, perhaps as long as six years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

I have encountered no issues with the technical support or its response time. I have found its response time to be prompt. 

The entire installation process is easy and very straightforward, which consists primarily of the installation of the tool and its configuration. We are talking about SaaS, software as a service installation, meaning one which is ready for use. As such, there is no real installation work involved. 

The installation period lasts from two to several weeks. A medium enterprise would have a two week installation period and a large one would have a month. 

Although I am not directly involved in the team staffing purposes relating to the installation, I would estimate that it would not involve more than five or six specialists. 

The license involves a multi-year contract. While the option exists to pay for a monthly license, we are dealing with large enterprises and these typically involve multi-year licenses of ten or five years, at a minimum. 

As systems integrators, we deploy the solution both on-premises and on the cloud, although it is mostly cloud-based. While we handle both on-premises and SaaS deployment, I am only addressing the aspects involving the latter. 

Globally, we manage in excess of 250 customers. We have a shared services model which serves more than one hundred customers. 

I do not feel it would be beneficial to explore other options beyond ServiceNow. 

I rate ServiceNow as an eight out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution for service desk requests, in order to track service desk requests and to know who's asking what and track these requests.

You can scale the solution.

The product has very good stability.

It could be easier to use. It's a bit complicated and the user experience isn't exactly easy.

It's too complicated and there are too many options. 

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

In my experience, the solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. I find it to be reliable. 

It's my understanding that the solution scales well.

We have about 100 users on the solution currently.

I've never used technical support in the past. There never was a need to reach out. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are, however, as I have no direct experience with them.

I also have experience with Jira.

I didn't really get involved in the initial installation. It's my understanding that there really isn't one. In my experience, there's just a simple link that you click on and you're all set.

I don't have any information about the licensing process or costs. It's not an aspect of the solution I deal with. I'm not in charge of it.

I've compared this solution to Jira in the past and I find them both to be complex in terms of the user experience. 

That said, I haven't evaluated anything to replace this product at this company. 

I'm not sure if we're using an on-premises or cloud deployment. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. 

At this point, I'm not sure if I would recommend the solution at I don't have enough personal experience with it.

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

This solution is used for ticketing, reporting, and changes as well as for operations and incident handling. We always use one version prior to the latest one within the environment.

It provides us visibility into how we're responding to business needs. If somebody requests a new user account, a new computer, or something else, there are SLAs that have been agreed upon between different departments and business organizations. We can run weekly and monthly reports to get visibility into how we're responding to business needs.

It enables us to meet SLAs, track issues across the environment, and report those issues.

The level of complexity and the level of discovery are the two areas that can be improved. Its UI needs to evolve. They focus a lot on cool colors and other little things, which don't bring value in terms of functionality. They need to focus less on presentation and more on the functionality within the UI.

Its discovery mechanism should be improved. There is a component in ServiceNow that discovers the assets, but it doesn't do an immediate discovery, and there is a lag. If I want to open a ticket for a laptop or an asset, that asset needs to exist within ServiceNow for me to be able to say that I need to have its disk space or memory increased. It is referred to as a CI or configuration item in ServiceNow. Sometimes, ServiceNow doesn't discover these items, and as a result, I cannot open a ticket and tag that system or asset. If a system was introduced to the environment last week and it is still not listed, it becomes a problem. I will either have to wait or manually enter that system or asset. So, if I have a laptop with only 8 GB of memory and I want to request 16 GB of memory, I won't be able to do that in ServiceNow because my system or asset hasn't been discovered yet. Discovery is not immediate, and there is a lag. 

I have been using this solution for around four years.

It is a stable solution.

We're a small company with less than 10,000 endpoints. I would be able to tell you about scalability only if we had more endpoints, such as over 100,000. Currently, its usage is 100% because everybody is using the tool. On a daily basis, we have less than three percent usage, which would be 300 use cases on daily basis.

They are awesome and great. I wrote the API bidirectional connector from Splunk to ServiceNow, and I've worked with them, and they are awesome.

I have been with this company for four years. When I came into the company, this solution was already in place.

I was not here when implementation was done, so I can't provide information about the challenges that had to be overcome when the solution was implemented, but I do know that it was implemented by a third party called Accudata. We did not implement it in-house. It was a managed service initially.

I would advise having a close relationship with the people who are implementing it and staying on top of it. You should meet every day to address any problems that are encountered. 

I would rate ServiceNow an eight out of ten.

We mostly use ServiceNow for incident management. There is a team which interacts with the customers and logs customer issues as incidents. Then those incidents are taken care of by my team. I work on the escalation side of that team.

That is one aspect of ServiceNow. The second thing we use it for are any economic, long-term or repetitive problems. We log problem tickets which are resolved in ServiceNow.

The third use is for changes in the system. All the changes to the system are logged in ServiceNow with their associated tasks. Those are the three major use cases for ServiceNow.

The feature that I have found most valuable from ServiceNow is the ability to assign sub-tasks to different teams, including problem tickets and the regular and chain tasks. For example, if there is a chain which requires different steps of execution validation or execution steps, those task divisions, as well as the assignment and ownership of the tasks, is something that is really useful in ServiceNow.

The major area for improvement for our needs would be monitoring the metrics of the times to acknowledge and resolve issues and escalations. For example, if there is an incident which is not acknowledged within a certain period of time, or the resolution of the incident exceeds a certain period of time, it can be escalated to the next levels. That is one of the things you're looking for which is not available with ServiceNow.

The second feature I would be looking for is integration with different tools, like Bugzilla, Microsoft Informer, and Jira. Jira has integration, in fact. Teams in different organizations use different tools, so integrating those tools would be really helpful.

I have been using ServiceNow for two years.

It is quite a stable solution. In the last couple of years we probably had around one or two outages and only one major outage. So it's very stable.

ServiceNow is quite scalable. 

I would say there are about 400 people using ServiceNow in the organization. That includes administrators, users and those who maintain ServiceNow. Currently, ServiceNow gets daily usage.

I don't usually get in touch with support directly because I am not an end user.

In my previous company we used a custom-built tool which was not available on the market. It was called My Article Support and was built internally specifically for big biotic collection. It was highly customized and it catered to a lot of our needs.

One of the features in that tool was based on the customer engagement level and not on the revenue impact that customer had on the organization or the number of users impacted, etc... It would generate the incident prioritization score, which determined how quickly we were supposed to work on the incident. So the prioritization of incidents was automated, which I do not find in ServiceNow. But that tool was very customized and it was internally built so the development was done in-house. The second thing was the ability to track and close escalations because it was a custom-built tool and there was a process for it. The process was defined and was in the documentation.

I was actually not there when the setup was done so I can't answer that.

You need to find a tool that suits your needs. For example, the ServiceNow tool has certain advantages but at this point, one of the major things I'm looking for is tracking an escalation based on acknowledging the resolution. Meaning, I'm looking for something which is different compared to ServiceNow. It probably depends on your needs but for certain use cases, it does work very well, and maybe you need to do a deep dive or evaluate it before you buy anything.

On a scale of one to ten I would rate ServiceNow a seven.