ServiceNow Reviews

I have found the workflows and integration the most valuable in this solution.

The solution is lacking in the mobile application area that could be improved. Additionally, the configuration of the UI path could be made easier whether it is on mobile or web and their chatbot needs some improvement.

I have been using the solution for approximately three years.

I have found the solution to be stable.

Most of our clients are enterprise size businesses.

The technical support is very responsive.

The initial setup is easy.

The price could be a little lower for the solution. Many of my customers have issues with the licensing process, they have to make it easier and straightforward.

I would advise others this solution is a great platform that can meet their enterprise code requirements but it is best to do a cost-benefit analysis before switching platforms.

I rate ServiceNow a nine out of ten.

Highly Customizable, Easy to integrate with third party applications, Configurable with little knowledge, Appealing UI, Automates processes.

By automating processes it has increased efficiency and productivity. As it was easy to understand customers easily adopted it.

A global search should be present OOB which can locate anything in the system like any piece of code or any sys id or any record so that we don't have to goto to each module for searching it.

More than 4 years.

No.

No. Very stable.

No.

Very prompt and efficient customer service.

Very good.

No.

It was straightforward and quite easy to deploy.

It has resulted in increase of efficiency which is our ROI.

Highly recommended.

The single record system, that you have all the data in one platform you can use and bind a lot of applications for different topics - that's very cool. It's also easy to use for the customers. Everybody knows what to do and where to click. You can try it and it's very fast. An example is incident application and of course, the Service Catalog, if you have a problem with the service catalog or a workflow, then you can open an incident.

ServiceNow is easier than existing systems, for example, HP Service Center. It's easier to use and every user wants to have it as simple as possible. If it's simple, you can work faster with it.

You can use standard functionality like add a wall to a group and then the user gets to sign and everything's fine. You can create ACL's, that's also good. If you like to split the users or the rights, what a user can do, then there are less walls. If you want to develop very quickly with ServiceNow, then you need the admin wall. If you have a lot of users, a lot of developers on a single platform, probably not everybody knows what the other ones do and you have, of course, different quality and experience of the developers. It's very fast to develop or change something that has a large impact on another solution. ServiceNow should provide a better kind of developer wall or something similar, whereby developers have a lot of rights. You're not the admin but can do and change everything.

We've been using it for around five years.

Deployment is specific to us because we have an on-premise installation. We have different servers and different security zones. The out-of-the-box functionality to retrieve an updates ad, for example, it's very nice and easy to use. It's okay, but if you're in different security zones in your infrastructure, then it's a little bit harder. It depends on how the developer know ServiceNow and how the process is defined. It's not a problem of ServiceNow.

There have been issues because of our customer as they wanted an on-premise installation. It's different than cloud solution. Stability is not a problem now. If there was a problem, then it was an infrastructure problem, not a problem of ServiceNow.

We are also using HP Service Center. We are consultants of it, and HP Service Center is also a good product. It depends on what the customer needs and how the customer wants to customize as to which solution they are offered.

ServiceNow is faster, easier to use, and configure. Also, if you have customizations you can use a lot of out-of-the-box features of ServiceNow and it's really simple to change something.

Depends on the requirements, of course. It was easy. It was good to develop something. If you try to use out-of-the-box functionality and your customer likes it, then it's okay. We also have huge and complex customizations, but they are working.

You should take the administration training and also the implementation specialist, and bring someone in. The best thing is if you have experience, since if you change something or see and do it by yourself, then you understand the whole system and how ServiceNow works.You understand what is the big advantage of the different configuration possibilities. If someone doesn't like to write code or JavaScript it's OK as you can use the configuration, but you need to understand what ServiceNow is, and how ServiceNow works.

For me, it's basically the ITSM rules of ServiceNow. You can help the companies and all that stuff with their assets as well and all their service catalogues. It's a pretty complete platform that you can basically create whatever you want.

For us, we can have all the information organized, all PIR processes. We can have, as I said before, all of our equipment, assets, and employee control all in one small place.

Some of the things which I've seen that they're improving now, it was the UI. It was a pretty basic UI which needed improvement. Now with Angular and stuff like that, making it more responsive, that is very helpful, but they need to work on the UI more.

They don't seem to have that major impact. It's not a huge difference. Maybe from Fuji to Geneva it might have changed a bit, but we didn't see it to Helsinki.

The performance also depends on if you have too many changes, depends on the script and the developer that has worked on that instance. In the out of the box service, no, I haven't had any performance issues.

For the most part it's easy. It depends on what the user wants, but most of it is all easy. They have the business rules, client script, everything is basically ready for you to develop.

The cloud is the future, so you want to have everything in the cloud, everything organized, everything in one place. Basically, that's it. The cloud is the future.

We use this solution for Service Management, iCast Management, and Software Management.

There are several use cases, you can use them in Education and in Health. We are using the latest version, which is called Paris.

I like the ease of use. I also like the flexibility.

It's not user-friendly by default, but it can be customized to be customer-friendly.

I have been using ServiceNow for three years.

It's a stable solution.

This product is scalable.

We have approximately 50 users.

We are going to continue to use this solution.

I have raised a ticket with the ServiceNow technical support.

I have used other products and switched because of the ease of use of ServiceNow, and the functionality of it.

We have to purchase a license.

The price is okay for us. It's reasonable.

Depending on what it's being used for, I would recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I would say it's that it's web based, relatively open, well integrated into different environment and OSN independent.

I would say database or data visibility. In fact, I think for me, I'm going for the physical side, most of the people like to access data without any constraints. We're in ServiceNow, it's not very easy to access the data on a very simple way. That would be a very good improvement, and you need some specific tools to access data or reporting. Sometimes it's not enough and that's the point.

I've used it for three years now. Partly as a developer and partly consulting with user groups.

I would say yes. Sometime some delay of latency but otherwise it is very stable.

We will see in the future but I think that Helsinki will be a very great improvement for us.

I have nothing to say about support. It's just nice.

We used BMC Remedy, and it was slightly different but we went for ServiceNow because it is more user oriented.

Prepare a very good Service Catalog first. Then you have a very good base to work on and then trying to adapt the interface to the user to the very basic user because it's the main problem we have to face too.

The integration and automation are most valuable.

Their debugging tool. Sometimes it's hard to debug some of the scripts because once Javascript fails, it doesn't really tell you why. It just skips over it and It keeps going. That's probably the biggest room for improvement.

I've used it for about a year.

We've not experienced any downtime whatsoever.

We got ServiceNow to build apps for our company. That's what we're really using tit for our business relationship with customers outside IT.

They're responsive, had no problems with them. Any time we did have an issue, we submitted a ticket, and they'll get right back to you and call you. I haven't had any problems personally.

We were using email. It was pretty bad and we were dropping the ball often.

It's a great tool. I would say people need to get their processes correct before they get the tool because that really drives what ServiceNow is. You have to be somewhat oriented for the tool to work. Once you get oriented, it'll drive that process but if you had that process beforehand the tool is going to keep going.

ServiceNow can be used for service requests and change management.

ServiceNow is easy to use.

I have been using ServiceNow for approximately five years.

The solution could improve by being more stable.

The support of ServiceNow is good.

The time it takes for the implementation depends on the customer requirements. Sometimes it will take longer. The out of the box configuration is easy and simple.

We have five developers that do the implementation of the solution. 

There is an annual subscription to use this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate ServiceNow a nine out of ten.