ServiceNow Reviews

We use ServiceNow for ITSM onboarding. We are customers and I'm a system analyst. 

The solution helps us to collaborate and it's great that it is knowledge-based. We make knowledge-based, easy-to-find information, and you can use the flows in ServiceNow. Those are the most useful features.

Performance could definitely be improved. There may be features I'd like to have that are not activated because of our licensing agreement. I would like to have the ability to access a Gantt chart.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The solution is stable.

It's quite scalable, we have around 300 basic or IT users which is pretty much everyone in the company. 

Technical support responds very quickly and if there's an emergency, they'll give us a call. 

The initial setup was quite straightforward. We deployed internally with some assistance from ServiceNow who carry out the maintenance. 

This is a very speedy solution so I rate it nine out of 10 on that basis. 

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.

For me, it's management and change management. It allows me to figure out if we have issues and when we need to make changes to solve problems. From my side, it's just reporting. Assets, I mean just analytics and stuff like that so I see if there's a high volume of tickets. If we need to resolve something, etc.

It allows us to have asset inventory, incident change - the standard stuff we need in a corporate environment. 

We have the flow from beginning to end. We know when a person starts at the company to one day if they leave. If they have issues, we could figure out why they have that issue and then just go to make changes. For anything we need to push out company-wide, we have all the information ready, so that's the reason we have ITSM.

Performance analytics could be a lot better. I know that's the big thing, they're pushing collaboration and stuff like that. It's just that portion, if that was better done it would be better for us. I the analytics were better and easier, if it didn't require someone with a lot of technical experience to create the reports, but rather if it was more click and drag, then anybody could create these reports. It would be a lot better.

From my standpoint, because we don't have people who are experienced in doing the performance analytics module and stuff like that, ee can't get the right reporting and it's just a beast trying to get that configured the right way. If it was more simplified and easier for us to generate reports, if it was click and drag, you could get all that information and they could produce reports like that. It takes a long time to produce reports.

We started using it about two years ago.

There were no issues with the deployment.

We have had no performance issues.

It's been able to scale for our needs.

We previously used Microsoft Service Manager. We were on the fence about moving over to Geneva then Helsinki came so we're thinking about moving over to Helsinki. We're trying to get that planned out.

I wasn't involved in the implementation so I can't really say but I don't think it was that difficult. I've not heard any complaints about it, or about the upgrades either.

I would tell you that ServiceNow is a great product to use because just from what we have, what we use, It's highly customizable, there's a lot of features that we like, it's just that performance analytics isn't as great as some of the other pieces that they have.

• Workflows
• Automation
• Integrations

I would say one of the best things on ServiceNow platform is the way how you can quickly automate delivery of services or goods to the end-user.

Reporting capabilities could use some improvement.

I've used it for four years.

It strongly depends on customer awareness of ServiceNow best practices. In some cases stability is an issue.

It strongly depends on customer awareness of ServiceNow best practices. In some cases scalability is an issue.

Depends how big account the customer is for ServiceNow.

I have a few experiences with HPSD. Thick client instead of web application says everything.

ServiceNow comes with a lot of functionality included as baseline implementation. For example, all main ITIL processes are implemented, as well the fact that it is a cloud solution gives you the whole functional system at the beginning.

I am part of vendor team or advising clients in solution architecture area.

The license model is based on a number of fulfillers (active users who play some role within ServiceNow functionality). Therefore, you can serve as many end-users as you want without additional costs.

A strong architect is needed. You should follow best practices and challenge customers. So don’t implement everything right at the moment when you receive requirements.

Find a strong partner with experience of other customers of the same size and nature. Find a parter that will create, together with you, a strategy that will guide you during preparation, all phases of development, and operational times.

One of the biggest features is its flexibility. It has out of the box functionality (incident, problem, change, etc.) that can be tailored to fit your organization.

With this tool we have been able to see what some of the most common issues are and then automate them. This helps out the help desk by reducing the number of calls they are getting. We are also using Discovery with our CMDB to help us manage our assets. We also utilize our CMDB for our Incident and Change process with the relationships that we have configured between them.

The biggest issue that I see is the way that they license some of their add-on products. We spend a lot of money, so they should have a better pricing model for customers that want to take advantage of some of the new offerings.

I have used the product for about five years in different capacities including as Tech Support at ServiceNow, a Solution Consultant for a ServiceNow Partner, and Administrator as a customer.

There were no issues with the deployment, but some were encountered during upgrades.

No, their support staff helps out by monitoring the instance and recommending action. We have some slowness from time to time but it usually due to issues on our ent.

We have not encountered any issues with scalability.

7-8/10. They have a difficult task, since they have to handle a wide variety of calls coming in to them. But, they work together with their team and development to help get a response to your question or issue.

This I would group with Customer Service.

It was implemented prior to me joining the company.

I was a consultant previously, so the initial setup is pretty straightforward, plus you have an implementation partner there to help you take your business requirements and configure it in the system

They started out with a partner, but they were not happy with the service. So they let them go and implemented it on their own.

When you purchase the tool, do not try to make it behave or look like your current system. Remember, you purchased this product for it’s ability and you should take full advantage of that.

This solution is our help desk system.

This solution is a single-storage for our user community to submit help desk tickets.

I do not like the user interface.

I would like to see a more streamlined process to assign tickets to support people.

This solution seems stable.

I think that it is scalable, although I think that there is room for improvement.

I thought that the initial setup was complex.

I didn't like the design that was given to us and we had very little say on how we could customize it.

We implemented the solution in-house.

My overall impression is that this solution is slightly above-average. My advice is to make sure that this product meets your needs before you buy it.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

PPS components such as Planning Console, Resource Workbench and the Visual Task Board are excellent add-ons to the OOTB lists and forms and provide a great way to add value to the Organization without having to opt for a point solution for each of these processes.

ServiceNow reduces drastically the time to value and it is possible to completely get rid of flat files such as spreadsheets and powerpoints in less than a month for any Organizational process.

ServiceNow offers Angular components that greatly enhance User Experience. Pages such as the Resource Workbench to allocate resource, Planning Console for Waterfall planning and Demand Workbench to prioritize demands all contribute to adding value to a ServiceNow implementation project. On the flip side, until very recently the overall UX experience was very poor as everything is either based on a form or a list. Hopefully with the release of Service Portal and as it evolves in future releases, web developers will have more and more flexibility to improve on the OOTB UI capabilities.

Deployment through Update Sets can be challenging at first but after some practice they become easy as a breeze.

Stability is assured by the Vendor. No issues found so far.

Easily scalable as the Vendor assumes availability at all times.

Very good. Quick response and very customer friendly.

Technical support hours can be negotiated with contract and with so many community resources most of the times it's not even needed to recur to the Vendor.

Setup requires someone who understands the default data model in order to quickly identify synergies between requirements and OOTB capabilities.

Licensing model is not easy to understand and is constantly evolving. For example, just recently ServiceNow changed the PPS licensing model (now Service Strategy) to distinguish between users who only perform assigned tasks (workers) and planners.

The speed of being able to do stuff. Once you know where to put your code, it's very fast to put it somewhere and have it running.

More publications about what plug-ins are available.

I've personally used it for about a year.

There's been very little downtime in the year we've had it. I think we've had one outage that was five minutes or so.

Product-wise, I think it's scalable. The pricing model is a little bit prohibitive for us.

They've been great. I haven't used them much in the year that I've done it. I've only had maybe two incidents logged, but they were great with them.

The community is good most of the time. People will answer questions so it's a pretty good community.

We just did the Fuji to Geneva, and there were a lot of issues. I think it was because we've done a lot of customizations on forms, adding things, and what-not that broke when we moved to Geneva. The other guys who have been there for longer have said it was pretty difficult in comparison to the other upgrades.

It's kind of preventing us from using it on other things because of the licensing model.

It's worth it, but have a good team around you to help you do it right. Having a team has been good to bounce ideas off of, especially when people have been using it in our organization for maybe eight or nine years. There's always someone who knows, "Oh don't do this," or "Do it that way."