ServiceNow Reviews

We were using ServiceNow to collect data in problem areas in operations. Most recently we are using it for our internal hardware tracking. For example, if someone requires a change of computer system, new headset, or any other hardware defects.

ServiceNow has helped improve our organization by making it more efficient. Since we only need to manage the cloud service and not other aspects, such as infrastructure or software, this has freed up 30% of our human resources that can be utilized on other tasks. The solution has added value to the company.

The solution is easy to use, simple to make queries, flexible to configure, integrates well, and supports all of our companies needs.

If you want to do analysis about a problem or collect information and export the data on a spreadsheet or a BI system is very easy. The data is able to be selected very fast which is very good because, in general, to export or to restore the information with another tool was terrible. You practically needed to go directly to the database and export it from there instead of having the ability in the menu of the application. With ServiceNow, the options are in the menu and you can do all your queries directly and export them in different formats. This saves us a lot of time and makes our work a little easier.

The solution is always updating and you are able to see the road map of what is going to come in the future.

When we are using the solution on mobile phones on their networks the performance is reduced with a delay of approximately 8 seconds. There is less delay using the desktop computers connected to the WiFi or to the network directly.

I have been using the solution for approximately three years.

The solution is very stable. We have never had an issue with ServiceNow, I do not remember a time we had a problem with the application. However, there are problems with the network, internet connection, and mobile networks, but not in the application. If there is a connection issue once the connection is established again the recovery is very good because the data automatically start to flow without any problem between both applications.

Azure has had only one incident in three years of use in our experience. 

The solution is scalable. It is in the contract of the SaaS we have the ability to scale the solution in the cloud. We have never experienced problems because if we demand more capacity for processing we automatically receive it from Azure.

We have 24 hours a day, 7 days a week support. However, I have never needed to use it.

The installation or deployment is easy because this is a Software as a Service (SaaS) solution and it is managed by ServiceNow.

They analyze the use of the tools they provide us with and they do the new deployments in a slot time when we do not use the tool or have minimal use. They inform us typically more than a week in advance and they send several friendly reminders when the cloud service has to do a change, a new deployment, or an upgrade. They are very flexible to keep the downtime of the service at a minimum and at a time that the tools are not being used.

The color scheme we are using is not good because sometimes the background is difficult for me to view. However, this is a company decision and can be changed.

We use a SaaS solution because the service has improved performance and maintains the up-to-date security of the application. As a company, we do not need to worry about doing upgrades because everything is looked after by ServiceNow. It is a very good solution and has worked very well for us.

I rate ServiceNow a nine out of ten.

The solution is used primarily to report incidents and then to follow up. It's mainly used for ticketing and incident resolution and tasks of that nature. I look at incidents and see the resolutions and report on that.

The solution is reasonably straightforward to use. The only thing I can say about it is, it presents me with the incidents that I've reported, so that's good. I don't have to look through a whole bunch of other incidents that aren't relevant to me. It's very useful in that sense.

The solution is very stable.

I find the way you need to attach things like screenshots and stuff is a bit gimmicky. I'm a casual user. I'll use it once every two months and only when I have an incident that I need to report. You don't get a lot of experience with it when you're just using it once in a while like that. Therefore, it needs to be more intuitive so that you don't have to re-learn how to do simple tasks as the way to do certain things just isn't obvious.

We've been using the solution for around two years now. It hasn't been that long.

The product is extremely stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. It has not been problematic at all.

I can't comment with authority, however, I would say we're a big company and there are probably lots of incidents and lots of demand for it across the company. I'm assuming it's pretty scalable.

We have around 5,000 employees in Canada. However, we're a multi-national. It may not be the case that all countries are on the same platform, however, internationally we have up to 100,000 employees.

it's used quite extensively in our company. On top of that, we are resellers, and we have many clients that we have implemented this for as well.

I've never dealt directly with technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are.

I've talked a lot with our groups that implement ServiceNow, and I haven't talked to them specifically about what it's like, or what kind of support they get from ServiceNow when they're implementing. However, I would guess that it's reasonably good, as I suspect it would be a pain point for them if people complain more about things when they're not working due to the fact that it wasn't set up right.

Before the company implemented ServiceNow it was more of a conventional help desk where you as a customer would call in. They might've had a tracking system that they used, however, they didn't give it to us. The thing about ServiceNow is that you get the users to self-serve. We report our own incidents. They never used to do that before ServiceNow.

We have a team in-house that can handle implementation for clients.

I've looked into HEAT. I'm looking to evaluate it with Service Now.

I'm in consulting. I'm not in the group that does the ServiceNow implementation, however, we have people on staff who do it. We've implemented it in our company and I use it as a user, however, I'm not a guy who configures it.

I'd advise new users to get someone, such as a consultant, to help them implement the solution. I don't actually have enough knowledge about it to really give advice. My understanding is it's a good, solid system. In our company, people are quite bullish about it. The best general advice I could give is, if you're getting someone to help you implement it, make sure they're people who know their stuff. If people go for cheap and cheerful support in implementation, they can have problems.

I'd rate the product at a six out of ten. As a self-serve product, it's kind of the middle of the road compared to other online experiences you get as a consumer. It's pretty bare-bones.

We mainly use it for requests and tracking incidents. We are onboarding our HR team, and they are going to start using the HR module in it as well. We also use it for asset management and configuration management. 

We are using the Paris release.

I like the incident module, which is useful for tracking your incidents and other things. It is a reliable solution.

We are struggling with the scheduling part, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a ServiceNow issue. It could be the way we have configured it. We don't have it configured in a way where you can schedule a support call with our end users.

We are looking for more automation in the box and the chat feature.

We've been on ServiceNow for two years.

It is stable. There are no issues at all.

We have around 60,000 or 70,000 users or maybe more.

I haven't contacted them.

We used an IBM tool. We switched because we were told that we were switching.

I didn't set it up, but it is pretty simple.

It is a great tool. Most companies in my industry use ServiceNow.

I would rate ServiceNow an eight out of ten.

We use ServiceNow for all service delivering processes within service management. For service and incident problems, change and configuration management, relief management, and event management.

Within our organization, there are roughly 30,000 users, using ServiceNow.

From a service perspective, I think that being able to customize it great. It's a very low-code platform, and it's simple. The user experience is also really good.

From a configuration/discovery perspective, how you map your infrastructure and the relationship — that could be improved in a sense to make it simpler. I know that discovery tools are not meant to be simple, but somehow, if they could make it more simple and robust, that would be great.

You just need plenty of experience with the solution, then it becomes much easier to use.

Other than that, I can't think of anything else that I would like ServiceNow to include in the next release. 

I have been using ServiceNow for two years.

ServiceNow is very stable. The scalability is also great.

I can't evaluate their technical support because I don't get support from ServiceNow myself. I'm responsible for implementing it for our clients, but we don't provide support.

The initial setup was very easy.

Initially, deployment took us eight months. Once we had some experience with it, we could deploy it in four months.

My advice would be to evaluate the license more — seriously look into their licensing options. The way that ServiceNow licenses the product, there is no concurrent user model so you have to pay for each user, and each type of user, that uses the tool. It can be very expensive depending on how you use it. Sometimes you cannot implement other modules because they don't have a budget for that. So make sure you correctly look over the different types of licenses to make sure you understand what to expect.

ServiceNow should review and make the solution more flexible for clients who have more users, or users that are not concurring, to know how to share licenses. To have options depending on how the client wants to use them so that everyone can benefit from it — that would be my advice. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give ServiceNow a rating of eight.

As a developer, I work on ServiceNow for HR solutions and a few other Service Portal functions.

Other solutions are integrated with different applications and tools, but ServiceNow is quite centralized, fully managed, and you can find everything in one place.

There are features included in the new release for intelligent software, like the chatbot. For HR services, the HR agent which is in that chatbot has been fantastic. There have been advancements in ServiceNow.

It gives you all the APIs out-of-the-box and you can directly write code with them.

There are a few things that it needs to improve, like automation of most things out-of-the-box. For example, when it comes to cloud management, we are still going with manual intervention. Instead of that, if we had an out-of-the-box feature available, that would be great.

Also, the first time we looked at the Service Portal, it was quite hard to understand its interface. People were looking for things, like the email functionality in Service Portal. That was not available and there were other things in Service Portal that were not up to the mark.

It's stable and it's improving. You can't compare ServiceNow with any other tool.

I have seen many changes in it. Previously, it was limited in its functionality, only for configuration management and the like, but now you can see it has many applications in it.

The scalability depends on how you utilize the tool.

As for the number of users on ServiceNow, I have been involved in a project where it was to be utilized by almost two million users. That was the biggest project I have worked on. There were internal users and outside users.

There were issues during the migration. They have certain locations, certain countries with different data, with different languages. We usually do the migration according to the country in which it's operating. We were doing certain migrations and, all of a sudden, when it reached a level above one million users, the nodes were very full and ServiceNow was unable to respond. We thought maybe it was due to our scripts. We checked everything first but it was working fine in the dev environment and the test environment. But when it came to production, there was a big risk and a big impact on the business.

We reached ServiceNow, even though it was not business hours. They said they had certain things on a low infrastructure and they told us that they would be migrated to a higher infrastructure and that we would have access again. We implemented it on a Sunday morning and we thought it would be working but on Monday we had a huge number of emails and calls and it was a day full of pressure. But we were able to solve it and get it back within an hour.

Usually, we don't reach out to ServiceNow until we know the problem is not in our hands. As a gold partner, our company has access to on-call support and direct access to ServiceNow's experts. We are able to contact people there, at the business level, and get things done.

We recently had an application tool that was supporting certain tasks in HR case-management. That tool has certain capabilities but it's not up to the mark when you compare it with ServiceNow. It provides you details about the task, but it does not have the basic functionalities like chat and email. It has to be integrated with other tools for those things.

As a developer and partner, most of the time the setup is customized. Right now, I'm working on a module called "Ask your HR." There are different sets of modules available and inside each module there are different sets of reports and functionalities, such as drag-and-drop, etc. It's full of customization. Whatever you're building, it has to be done from scratch. It's not like the functionality is available out-of-the-box.

We do follow certain documentation and steps. Whenever we do a migration or implementation, we check for the available system capacity. We have a team that allows us to do testing on it and see what kinds of things can be done, or how we can migrate directly to ServiceNow.

We usually don't go with a full-fledged migration, we do it in phases, Wave 1, Wave 2, and Wave 3. Each wave has certain things in it. We will plan it accordingly and, once the wave is successful, we'll do regression testing of certain scenarios and check whether it is up to the mark or not.

Back in 2011, BMC Remedy was at a peak and people were focusing on it. But starting in 2014 and 2015, ServiceNow came on and its competitors were watching. It went from about ten to 20 percent of the market to almost 40 percent of the market.

I would rate ServiceNow at nine out of ten. It is all about improvement, about getting things from your legacy system to the latest one.

I'd say auditing, asset tracking, following tickets, and making sure what our employees are doing. The ticketing system though is what we rely on most. I'm able to follow what my co-workers are doing so we're not stepping on each other's toes. This enables us to be as productive as possible.

Compared to HPE Service Manager, ServiceNow offers a lot more customizations and a lot more plug-ins that you can throw in there. I'd just say it has a better ability to customize, and developers can get in and get dirty.

It has a good document repository which translates into a good knowledge base with good articles. Looking at tickets, charts, and the dashboard. Seeing what everyone's working on - it's cool.

To have this external facing site, we can pretty much face talk any customer we need to. They can log into a single portal using single sign on, which means they can use the same account to log into their machines and our environment. Sending tickets to a central location. Being able to track those tickets to see where their requests and incidents are in the process.

Just ease of use for people who aren't very technically savvy. Sometimes it does take a lot of customization to make it easier for the user to use but for someone who's technical, it's pretty straightforward.

I actually worked with a smaller team with Optum that does POCs and we've actually been proving out ServiceNow for about four years. Now they are up the street we call it, the greater organisation is implementing the same thing using HPE Service Manager. I think their goal live date is July this year.

They're always very functional about updates and patching.

The fact that it's tied directly into LDAP means that it's great. I don't think there's a limit.

It depends how deep you want to go. You can use it for pretty much for anything. I wasn't involved in the implementation of it, but from a management perspective, it's pretty sweet.

I would say that it's just very straightforward. You want your users to have a good experience. With ease of use, I'd say it's perfect.

We use the solution to manage a suite of applications.

The solution has an efficient code engine. It helps implement the workflows very well.

The solution's stability and pricing need improvement.

We have been using the solution for eight years.

It is a stable solution, and I rate its stability a seven. Although, the troubleshooting functions are complicated to use.

It is a scalable solution. I rate its scalability as an eight out of ten. 

The solution's initial setup process is easy. The time taken depends on the volume of code.

The solution is expensive. I rate its pricing a seven.

It is a good tool; I rate it a nine out of ten. I advise others to ensure that it fits their business use cases.

One of the benefits of the platform itself is that it's not covering IT service management only. It, for example, has price service management functionality. 

There are lots of modules around IT service management such as IT business management and human resource management (HRC). Bigger clients, enterprises, are often looking for end-to-end business flow automation. Part of those processes, in other cases, are standalone solutions. The ability to implement end-to-end flows, including business ones, is the most important aspect of the solution.

I sometimes try to compare ServiceNow with Micro Focus. When I worked with Micro Focus or HPE, I liked how they communicate with partners, how they provide materials. ServiceNow really does lots of things in this area, however, there is definitely some space for improvement there. For instance, some workshop materials, et cetera, are lacking. They need to be providing vendors and implementation partners with materials and guidance on implementation.

The solution is mostly on the cloud. On-premises implementations are more difficult. 

I've been using ServiceNow for the last five years. I remember my first implementation project was in 2017. Probably before that, I started using ServiceNow and did the training, et cetera.

The stability is pretty good. On average, I don't see many clients complaining about the performance side of stability or availability on the platform.

We did some cases to improve server functionality with scaling. We created clusters. In terms of the scalability of ServiceNow itself, several instances of ServiceNow with synchronization, et cetera, as well as performance, I don't recall scaling so much. In most cases, it's not really required as one instance of ServiceNow is good enough for most clients. They also handle all this backup, monitoring, and et cetera, internally. 

I rarely deal with technical support, as, most often at least, I focus our innovation on implementation projects. Support is more active when it's implemented already and rolled out to production. Other personnel from my department handle that, for sure. From my understanding, in terms of the quality of the support,  it's quite typical. Sometimes it could be better and faster. However, if we can imagine the flow of those tickets for the ServiceNow support side, I would imagine it's quite big. Therefore, I'd say that it's acceptable and understandable.

I also work with Atlassian's Jira Service Desk. I used to work with Service Manager five years ago.

For ServiceNow, I really like it's a single platform. Everything within the platform is integrated already. There are quite rich integration capabilities with other systems at the client-side. For Micro Focus, you can install it in the cloud or on-premises. ServiceNow doesn't really allow you to install anything on-premises. 

On the Micro Focus side, some of their products were really great, such as Universal CMDB or UCMDB. At some point, it's still better than the current ServiceNow CMDB. Some single individual products from Micro Focus were really great for me. However, in some cases, when you come into a client and try to solve a complex task, you need to map the requirements to particular products. For Micro Focus, sometimes it was problematic as you required many products solving more or less the same purposes. At ServiceNow, each module is quite unique and serving its unique purpose. It's more like LEGOs. 

With Micro Focus, I remember in some cases, their solutions were quite resource-consuming. It's pretty predictable since HPE at the time was both a software and hardware vendor. It was good for them to sell software plus hardware. Sometimes it was how to understand why particular software could consume so many resources. That's not a problem with ServiceNow at all as it's on the cloud mostly.

The initial setup is pretty clear. If we try to compare the implementation of some traditional modules, like incident management, request fulfillment, it's an industry standard. It's very good. ServiceNow, from a functionality and partner support perspective, has lots of materials. However, when it comes to some newer modules, some ITBM applications, et cetera, sometimes when they just release the first version of the module, and it might be a bit different from a functionality perspective. There's a lack of documentation and support. That's quite typical. I feel like Hewlett-Packard pays a bit more attention to that.

We're implementors. We implement the solution for our clients.

ServiceNow is still mostly used as an ITSM platform. And IT service management mostly feeds some kind of internal purposes. It's not a business-related platform. It's supposed to save money, not to help to earn money.

Some clients come in to get some help with the reimplementation of a platform. Others are looking for certain improvements to the existing platform. In some cases, it's a greenfield implementation. For greenfield implementations, especially when it comes to big enterprises, the question behind the scenes is we don't really understand how much we spend on IT. There are likely many unrelated budgets, which are not even visible. The first question is how much you really spend. And if they get an answer to this question, it's already a good achievement. 

Over time, we baseline the spending and we implement new functionality and new processes, new modules. In some cases, it's quite expensive compared to the business itself. By that, I mean, the processes we implement. We may have 20 people doing some job and if you look at their salaries for a couple of years, it's a lot. We come in and implement and automate the process for them, and in those cases, it might be five years of salaried budget saved. However, that's years. You won't see the savings immediately. It will be something witnessed over time.

We're a ServiceNow partner. We help to implement ServiceNow for our clients.

We're working on likely the latest version of the solution. ServiceNow provides upgrades two times a year. Previous versions get obsolete so that you can't actually use them.

I often see that people tend to simplify things and they expect any system, no matter if it's ServiceNow or any other system or platform from the area, that the implementation would solve the entire ATSM matter. However, in fact, with ATSM, it's about products, people, processes, and partners. All the efforts should be covered. No solution is a silver bullet.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. it's a very good solution, however, there's always room for improvement.