ServiceNow Reviews

I like the out of the box module processes like the incident problem change. Currently, I think the most powerful features are discovery, orchestration, the business map of the relationships, and building applications for business. The business applications has been in place for a year, and we have new customers, so we want to make business applications not only for IT but for other departments in the company.

With it, I can do everything. I have some questions, requirements, from the customers. I never say to the customer, "I can't do it." That's because I can do everything, so I think only our imagination can be the limit of ServiceNow. Even if something doesn't work now, I know that in the next few months it will.

From the customer perspective, I think the most important aspect is that they know what they're paying for. They pay once a year which makes it easy to plan financially. They know the costs of using ServiceNow, because you don't need extra resources, servers, backups etc. as everything is in the cloud.

From my perspective as a partner, I can do everything with ServiceNow so I don't stress about telling a customer during a meeting that I can do something even if I think I can't. Everything is possible and it's only limited by the imagination of myself and the developers.

I think that it goes too fast sometimes and they have too many releases too often. Sometimes there are bugs, maybe not making it unstable, but we need to change some customer customizations. For example, there are problems with the performance, so if ServiceNow is changing something such as data centers there can be issues. Availability is perfect of this platform. Genius, as I said at the beginning.

The only bugs are related to the configuration, not from the ServiceNow side, but from the partners that are doing something because they don't understand how it works.

It's small issues. Not a big impact for production instances and for the current work.

I worked with HP Service Manager. I know that BMC Remedy is quite similar in functionality to ServiceNow. They are trying to be in the same space but with HP Service Manager, I know there is a problem. For example, my previous company decided to go forward with ServiceNow as it had a service catalog. The Service Catalog functionality wasn't working in HP Service Manager, so they decided to switch to ServiceNow.

It depends. From my perspective, it's easy, I am a system architect, and I think from a customer perspective it's easy as well. I can see a new custom application created in a simpler way, for building applications, etc. but I'm usually only using the basic functionality, which I started to work with at the beginning because it's easier and I know that I can control it. From the user perspective, I can see that they are adding new forms to configure everything.

It's genius and there is no risk from the IT manager perspective. The management team of a company isn't at risk either and the future is always promising.

You can be sure that if you invest in ServiceNow the entire company will be happy. Always have a good partner to develop the instance and everything will be fine. For IT management, it's not risky to experiment with ServiceNow.

I would give it a ten. It's the best, from my perspective, especially compared with the IT systems I've worked with before.

I guess it would be the way incidents are created in ServiceNow. It makes our job a lot easier on the service desk. Another thing would be something we just got which is CG4 which is where we are able to track our inventory as far as laptops, monitors and anything else that might be issued to our, I guess we call them customers, and that's about it so far that I've experienced.

It's very important for us to know where our items are and if somebody leaves the company, we want to make sure we get everything back so that the next person that comes in gets everything that they need, and we've had to sort out other items to purchase and wait for them to get here, which just makes it a lot easier for us.

I guess it all goes back to making our job easier and letting our customers able to let us know what the problem is and we can resolve it as fast as possible, and keep track of all the problems that are going on on a daily basis.

Everything in our system can always use some improvement. Right now I'm working on finding out how duplicate usernames are being created in our ServiceNow instance and that causes problems because we need to assign a ticket to somebody and then it shows two names but they don't know which one to choose so they choose the one that's not active, or it's going to go that person but it's going to go somewhere else, but the other one is the actual one that has the email address and then they get the notifications but the other one doesn't so then they lose the ticket and doesn't know where it is.

I know we've been using it for about three years.

Everything is fine for me.

There are issues sometimes. With the updates, we have a line of code that is probably not compatible with that update so we have to go back and see what line of code needs to be edited so that it works with the new update.

For on-boarding, we pretty much put everything in Active Directory and it just goes over to ServiceNow but we don't like our Human Resources as they don't use ServiceNow. They have their own system so we kind of have to do double the work.

I only joined the company recently, so I don't know if something else was used.

I'm not sure. I wasn't here when they implemented ServiceNow or during the upgrade to Fuji. However, I heard it's pretty easy. The person that did it told me a little bit about it, that she sat down and then just called and was on the phone with ServiceNow. They were going over all the steps and it was maybe a couple of hours and then they did some testing afterwards to make sure that everything was running fine and that's about it.

I would say go for it, because at my other company we had a system called Track-It but nobody ever used it. It wasn't that good, and I don't know if it was cheap or it they just stopped using it altogether, but ServiceNow is really good.

Because I do IT planning and program management, the project portfolio management part is most helpful and useful, but I can also see the integration to other parts of the IT operation as well. I think that's most useful because we are looking from an end-to-end perspective within the IT organization, though we may have different functional teams, but we are working as one team, so it's important that the various operations or processes are tied and integrated into one platform, in one end-to-end process.

I can see a very good product strategy. We see enhancements or enhanced features in each of the releases. I see the roadmap is good and the technology underneath is also good.

During the Knowledge16 conference, I found out more about the IT financial management part, which is important to me because we're trying to do more finance on our IT operations so that we can measure performance. We can also share info with our business shareholders and stakeholders as well. I see those features as really useful when we transform our IT organization into a service organization.

In our region we don't have many choices of implementation partners. At the same time, I don't see that they are as proficient as they are in other regions.

Today we aren't seeing major issues but one of our concern is that it's expensive.

Not at this company, but beforehand I had used Remedy. It is a very traditional IT Service Management tool, basically a help desk, but I think there's a lot more in ServiceNow.

The underlying technology and also the application or customization facility, or the technology behind ServiceNow actually is quite robust and quite agile, which we can make use of to do a release and deliver it quickly.

We're using Deloitte as our implementation partner. They are doing a fantastic job, but they're just one particular resource, one or two that can help us, but in our region, we don't have many choices on partners that are proficient in ServiceNow as well as in IT operations.

We are trying to do it in a phased approach, we want to have the initial system for us, and then we'll use it and improve-enhance it later on. I don't see that we'll have major issues, because our goal is not to have it all in one step, but rather we are evolving our solution.

I do not have particular details, but what I heard from my boss is that it's not a cheap solution, especially when you want to roll out to more people or more colleagues in an organization. That is really a significant factor we're considering because in terms of the cost it's not cheap, so we hesitate. We can see a lot of scalability and expansion possibility in rolling out beyond the IT organization.

The ease of use, as for us it's sort of like Lego. If somebody wants something, if they want some automation, if they want workflow, etc. It's cool that if you can imagine it you can probably build it fairly easily.

It's very, very cost effective. We're able to replace traditional FTE dollars and spend on ServiceNow at a fraction of the cost. I believe when it was initially implemented there was an immediate reduction of one to two people.

I'd like to have an offline mode. For us, we do a lot of workforce management. We've got a lot of guys out in the field in remote locations. Getting them into the system is good, it's beneficial for us. Good forms and get that data in. If they're out on site, they can't access the system.

There were no issues with the deployment.

I think that's one of the key things with that tool is all of those considerations and problems go away.

It's infinitely scalable, we've had no performance issues.

It can be both straightforward or complex. Probably one of the easiest ones that I've done was Greenfield. They didn't have ServiceNow at the time. They only wanted a project management solution. That's it. That was very, very small, very straightforward. Then I did one for a company in Australia called TXA. They do a lot of the television transmission equipment and it was end to end automating ticket creation based on an event log. A very, very bespoke and complicated event log.

It was very particular as there are a lot of concepts very particular to their business. It was very, very interesting but it was incredibly complex. They wanted as much of hands off and let the system sort it out as possible. Most implementations are fairly similar.

Some advice that I've heard -  get people hands on with it as early as possible. I find a I go through requirements with a user or with a company that they get, and they'll think that it's solid. As soon as they start playing with ServiceNow they realize "hang on, maybe I can get it to do this, I can change this. "The requirements just completely change.

I think it's excellent in all of the ways that software can be. The only negative that I've got is the one that I said before which is half negative, half positive. That it's being developed so quickly.

We utilize it as a ticketing tool for the customer support team. It helps us manage digital workflow and possible incident alerts.

Many features are valuable. It allows us to filter the data, create graphs, and get detailed reports.

The pricing structure could be more budget-friendly.

I have been using it for two years.

The solution is stable.

It provides scalability.

They provide good support for their customers.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The deployment process was executed quickly and easily, including setup and repair testing. It was done in a few hours by our technical team. We implemented our real-time data analytics application into the system, ran a test and after it created alerts, we passed on the alert reports to the designated team for evaluation.

We have seen a positive return on investment. The solution is worth the value for the pricing.

It is fairly expensive.

I am satisfied with the solution. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Your time-to-market, or TTM, becomes faster when you use ServiceNow. Even individuals that are not tech-savvy can quickly change processes and workflows in it. This can make the organization as a whole more agile. 

ServiceNow's mobile app should be seamless and it is not right now. Whatever I'm able to do through a laptop or a browser, I should be able to do via mobile. That would be a big advantage. 

I have been using ServiceNow for more than a decade. 

ServiceNow was designed entirely on the cloud from scratch and its competitors like HP and BMC are trying to catch up to it now. It has a beautiful interface and a single system of record. 

If you are just starting to use it now, take baby steps first. Then, when you understand how it can fit into and benefit your business, implement bigger changes. 

It's used for a helpdesk.

It really hasn't improved the way our organization functions. I don't really like ServiceNow.

I don't think any of the features are important. I'm not really a ServiceNow fan.

It's not very secure, it's web-based, and I prefer Remedy. Both the security and the web interface could be improved.

It is stable. It seems good.

There have been no issues that I know of with scalability.

It's sold as a less expensive solution, but it has to be highly modified. That's where you get into the cost.

Make sure to look into all the configuration costs and the customization. Be aware that it's web-based. You're probably going to have to put holes in your firewalls and need to do a complete security review.

As an end user, I would rate it a seven out of ten. I don't think it's very secure, and it's web-based, and Remedy is really the standard that it's judged against.

Microsoft and Oracle Software tracking and management.

• Maintains a real-time view of license position. 
• Compies with contract terms to avoid penalties and the impact that an audit can have on day-to-day activity 
• Identifies better ways to license software or eliminate unused software to save money and maintain a choice between buying more licenses or reclaiming licenses to stay within compliance. 

Oracle and Microsoft license software catalog. 

Needs additional software titles and easier normalization.