ServiceNow Reviews

I mostly use it for change management.

Change management is most valuable.

The interface can be a bit more intuitive.

It has been in the company for quite a while. It's not new at all. 

I've been using it on and off for about eight or nine years. I work with this solution on almost a daily basis at this point, at least three times a week.

I find it to be very stable.

I'm not in a good position to give a judgment on its scalability, but in terms of its usage, because it is a ticketing system, it is used for all the incidents. Our service desk uses it primarily to issue tickets, requests, changes, and so on. There are about 15 people who use it very regularly for those types of purposes. It is being used extensively.

I never had to get in touch with their technical support.

I wasn't here when it came online.

I would rate it a seven out of 10.

We use it for incidents, incident management, sales management, and problem management. We are very happy with the product.

We are about to upgrade to IT Service Management edition on September.

It enables communication. The benefit is that we can keep track of all the changes and the incidences.

We can keep track of incidences. There is a bucket where we keep all our information, and it enables communication between stakeholders. It helps us collaborate with each other.

We would like to have an Asset Management and/or Project Management feature enabled in this version and in the IT Service Management edition.

The Express edition does not allow the option for scripting.

It is very stable. We have only had five minutes of downtime in three years. 

Compared to other companies, we are small (270 people). Scalability does not affect us.

If it is a high priority, they will respond very quickly. If it is a low priority issue, it might take some time, some three or four days. I would rate the technical support as a 10 out of 10.

We didn't have another solution before ServiceNow.

The initial setup was straightforward, but we did some core customizations. Therefore, we did need more time to finish setting it up.

I would recommend it as a product.

Most important criteria when selecting a solution: 

• Stability
• Reputation in the market
• Is the product well-known?
• How long has the product been offered?

It's all about the level of usefulness ServiceNow brings to IT. They all affect legacy systems, so if you compare it with other tools, the edge which ServiceNow was there from day one. Usability, application customizations and ease of building your own product within the tool was a very positive edge for ServiceNow to be leaps and bounds beyond the market tools.

We have done multiple implementations across various industry structures, industry verticals like manufacturing, automobiles, healthcare, aerospace, and federal government implementations. All these implementations are different in its each unique way based on how many users use it, the locations of those users and all that. What I'm trying to say is even if there are multiple customizations, the number of users are different, we've never seen any stability issues compared to other industry leading tools. It's pretty stable.

Definitely discovery software and management. Then talk about CMDB, how they arrange all those CMDB tables. Those are a few areas of improvement that they can make better.

I've been using ServiceNow for the past six years. From the initial days where they were on a on-premise implementation, I've been using ServiceNow products.

8/10 - because when you're talking about scalability there are a lot of factors. You're talking about user scalability, we're talking about application scalability, talking about what ServiceNow can achieve. They are very good with custom applications, building capability, and the ability to maintain them. The only thing is once you kind of get into that part, then when you do upgrades you're probably going to need to work on those custom applications to make sure everything works fine. Apart from that, they're a pretty robust and scalable platform for workload.

They're responsive. Knowledgeable - it's kind of questionable because the problem they are also facing is expanding leaps and bounds. Everybody wants to get on the ServiceNow bandwagon. They're probably also having issues with resourcing and training those people to kind of address the right questions and all that. Each and every problem is unique so there's a need to find a senior resource and assign the ticket. The whole addressing duration, issue disintegration, would definitely take longer in case of your level one is not so equipped. That's what I observed.

It's straightforward.

The ease of use is great, whether it be for someone like me who's an administrator and developer, or just the end user in general. The fact that it's cloud-based, so you can access it from anywhere as long as you have a browser, or a smartphone. The overall ease of use is great.

The whole mobile aspect seems to be the key. People are still working, they’re not at their desks, so they need an easy way to work. I think that's going well in that direction. It seems like ServiceNow as a company has a pretty good vision on where they are, where they should be and it really matches up well with what we're looking to do.

We've been using it for just about a year now.

The availability has been great. Any issues we've come up with we've been able to easily rectify with working with support, so I would say it's definitely great.

Right now we pretty much just deployed it for IT use. We're getting ready to deploy it for some of our organizations outside of IT like our broadcast operations, our repeater, even facilities, so I think the future is looking good.

Probably the best that I've ever dealt with. Really knowledgeable. Usually pretty quick on getting back with you. Their website, wiki, and community are great. Probably the best support I've ever dealt with in my twenty plus years in the industry.

I've been in this industry so long. Prior to this I'd been working with Remedy for about fifteen years or so. This takes me back to the really old Remedy days when it was a really great product, before they were bought out by a big company, where there was a great community and great conferences.

It's pretty straightforward. We worked with a partner, Logic Callus to help us get setup. We had a hard date because we were coming off of an existing cloud system, so we had to really push hard to make it in that time frame, but we were up and running incident change, problem, and service catalog in two months. Basically what we had allotted for. It was pretty seamless.

I would tell you to take a look at it. It's a great product. Get a demo and get familiar with it, because you can pretty much do anything you need to do with it.

Its integrated process data-model is a feature that's valuable for us.

It's provided a platform to provide Process as a Service.

The usability and user experience is a really big issue and needs to be improved.

We've used it for five years.

We encountered no issues with deployment.

We encountered no issues with stability.

We encountered no issues with scalability.

In our experience with technical support, we found that first-level support is pretty mediocre and second-level support is just adequate.

I used a custom solution in the past, but switched to ServiceNow.

The initial setup was straightforward. The only complexity was in the business requirements given by those trying to customize it to do something outside of the native configuration.

We used a mixed team of in-house and vendor.

Vendors tend to do what the customer wants, which is the wrong approach. Always start out understanding the native function of the tool, then you adapt your process to fit the tool, not the way around.

We are still waiting for ROI to be realized, and are unsure yet of the value due to adoption issues.

You should focus on the adoption more than configuration.

We use ServiceNow for our internal IT and end-users. When I first started with it, I was simply a user. I've now started to manage the functionality, as well.

Very soon, we will be upgrading to the Paris version.

The most valuable features are its ease of use and capabilities.

ServiceNow is a pretty versatile product.

It is robust and very user-friendly.

I would like to see more functionality in terms of custom workflows, not impacting the overall platform health.

I have been using ServiceNow for between four and five years.

This is a really stable solution.

It is possible to scale, as needed.

I have not had direct experience with technical support, but they have been very helpful for us.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. Ours is a pretty large implementation, so it took approximately two weeks. This was due to the complexity.

This is a pretty expensive product, so the licensing could be better.

This is a product that I absolutely recommend. My advice is to use as much of the out-of-the-box functionality as possible.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use cases are for service management, incident, change, problem, asset, and lifecycle. The system was build and integrated to SAP as a backend ERP?CRM system. This made integrations and choices in functionality complicated. However, by replacing Symphony as a rather internal orientated system, ServiceNow gave us the benefit of tight customer integrations by means of the web-based portal, which is a user-friendly interface to use and actually helps speeding up incident handling by improved communication and information sharing.

It gave us professionalized, faster incident turn around times. Improved quality of information shared with our customers. Over time we build an extensive knowledge base that assists in both self-service as in services provided by the servicedesk when handling incidents.

Because we first redesigned our internal and external processes we were able to effectively roll out and implement ServiceNow, sequentially per workflow, and put the lessons learned in earlier implementations to work for us. Overall is has improved service management on CSM.

There is one platform and many solutions. Workflows are well designed and robust. All user screens have the same look and feel, helping to understand the logic of the supported workflows. Integrations to third parties are strong and build on on off the shelve API integrations which makes them quite easy to build. ServiceNow is built on the best practice framework ITIL and helps customers organize their organizations accordingly. Although many trainings need to be completed, this assures a proper knowledge level at the users.

There should be fewer clicks and faster integrations between solutions. Too much information needs to be entered when transferring between solutions. Obvious logic does not always seem to apply when transferring tasks between workflows. Having said this, the availability of these many workflows and solutions on one platform is the strength of ServiceNow. 

New development of new features is not as flexible as one would expect, global adherence to rules and regelations seem to bog down the development and release process.

I have been using ServiceNow for six years. 

It is very stable.

We haven't met the limitations.

Their support is not experienced. 

We did use Symphony which was very internal oriented and needed a step towards our customers. Servicenow provided us the possibility to interface with numerous different customers in different countries as well as third parties. 

The setup was complex due to country dependencies and integrations.

We deployed in-house.

Licensing model ServiceNow is expensive, so monitor actual use.

Yes, TOPdesk and BMC

make sure you prepare your processes and workflow before implementation, choices made at the implementation stage are carried over into your actual work. The tool basically support all imaginable workflows, although this requires a high level of knowledge, customisation and  coding.

I find the product to be valuable because even before they started really pushing it as a platform as a service, that is the biggest reason as to why I leaned towards its purchase two years ago; it's platform as a service. We didn't really purchase it as a SAS product. It's valuable to us because we do a lot of custom development on the platform.

We could have chosen many different platforms but for lack of a better word, it was the easiest to be able to move to, taking all of our existing processes and data from different sources. It was born in the cloud so we didn't have to worry about all of the nuances of being able to ensure that it would work as a cloud application. That was a big piece and it already had a service, although rudimentary, a service portal available with it. I think in the previous versions it's referred to as an ESS portal. With Fuji on forward I think they refer to it as a service portal.

If you look at the number of support calls that we put into ServiceNow, it's absolutely minimal because we filter. We don't have our users calling into ServiceNow directly and we trained our users, etc. I don't really see the value, monetarily, from what we're spending from a support perspective. Because if we call into ServiceNow it's because we're experiencing something at a much higher level, not something that is an easy fix. It's usually we've recognized performance issues or something like that. Their up time has been satisfactory for the most part.

For the most part, the product is very stable. We host customers ourselves and we know how difficult it is. As a host provider you're not completely 100% in control of everything, you're dependent on other vendors to be up.

We've had three major upgrades since we implemented and there have been no issues. A lot of that has to do with the fact that we followed a very regimented custom development best practice so that we wouldn't interfere with any of their upgrade processes.

It does not necessarily scale from a licensed user perspective, we don't grow as much because our license users are really just our core set of resources within our company that's internal. From an external customer perspective, our customers are international/worldwide, so we have folks from Africa, Singapore, London accessing the system. We went from an initial 8,000 users to double that amount from an external customer.

We also continue to use our own application that we develop which supplements ServiceNow.

We had a lot pushing us to go very fast so we implemented ServiceNow in less than a 90-day period once we actually started progressing to actual implementation. Some portions of just deciding upon the product and all of that took much longer, but once we procured the product and actually set on our way to implement, in less than 90 days we were live.

Advice to peers: It would depend on the problems they're trying to solve. It really would depend on the problems they're trying to solve. As an ITSM solution, I would highly recommend it, first choice. For something else, it would depend.