ServiceNow Reviews

We have several applications of the product, however, the main use case is to generate all the backlogs of the different squads where we assign histories and we can link this to concrete people. 

The histories and the tasks that we draft within the histories are used for creating all the burn charts in agile and to show the velocity of how well it was the last sprint in terms of shipments. This is the key purpose. 

We also use ServiceNow to log IT tickets and to trace them. Those tickets can be created directly as a ServiceNow history on the IT squads. This will go directly to their backlog. It is a quite nice interaction.

It's used to manage the sprint in agile to create all the backlogs and to activate the current sprints, to create the burnout charts of the velocity of the sprints, and also to register any IT-related support ticket requests.

When we join the task board we can have a main view that we use on the daily standups in the agile world. It is very easy to navigate across and to move histories around. 

It's great to do statuses or to review tasks. We can open them and get some details and updates. 

It is quite flexible as a system and is very visual.

It helps to keep the daily standards to 15 minutes.

Probably the backlog organization could be a little bit easier in terms of transversality between different squads. It would be nice if we could, with some specific access rights, move histories from one squad to another, as they generate dependencies or duplicate or flag them. We'd like to create dependency charts between different teams. This is something that Jira, for example, used to do very easily.

It would be ideal if there was some sort of Follow button to help users follow certain concrete task histories. That way, if you are following something, you could bet an immediate update when there is a change of status or a new comment or whatever.

In my current assignment, I've been working with ServiceNow since January. However, in the past, I used it from 2016 until 2019. This is my fourth year using ServiceNow.

The solution is stable. It always works. We haven't had any issues. In this case, no news is good news.

The solution is perfectly scalable. What they give you is the framework. In terms of functionalities, every client can customize it. It'll work well for different companies.

The product is widely used in the institution. Likely 90% of head office employees use it. 

I've never really needed technical support. I've used ServiceNow to request technical support on other applications. I was just handed over the minimum standards to use it, and then I learned by doing. It was quite easy.

With my previous client, I used Jira.

I cannot speak to the initial setup. When I started using the solution, it was already in place. I'm not an implementer of it. I'm an advanced user. Therefore, I can't speak to how simple or difficult the implementation process is.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we are currently using. We're likely using the latest as this is a big systemic bank. I'm pretty sure that they are continuously updated with the latest version.

I'm a user. I'm a consultant and scrum master, however, I use a lot of these tools also for agile management work.

This solution works if you invest a little bit of time in preparation. That said, that's the same for other vendors, like JIRA. You need to have efficient scrum cycles and organize them well. You should have efficient planning sessions and all the backlog should be already prepared, drafted, refined, organized, and prioritized. 

What is very important from inception, regardless of whether we're speaking about Jira or ServiceNow, is to have a very clear upfront plan of how you want to structure it. What is the kind of dependencies or links you want to create between different levels of access, for example?

I would advise users to prepare in advance the full strategy of configuration before they start doing anything. It is very hard to change later. You will create technical depth and will call out what you're not going to use. To roll them back once you've started is hard. It is worth it to take time, in the beginning, to try to forecast as much as possible. 

Overall, I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I use the solution primarily for IT Financial Management and IT Business Management.

In financial management, this platform has the infrastructure allowing us to expand the way we want to. For example, it gives you many business rules and budget models that you can use to optimize your workflow. It does not put you in a box. Additionally, integrating this solution with other platforms is extremely easy to do.

The asset management application could be improved. They have a lot of the infrastructure built, but it does not come with already made compatibility with some of the most popular vendors, such as Cisco and Microsoft. You have to fix it yourself.

If this solution wants to be a big player in the asset management field, they have to have tools to compete with competitors, such as Tanium, that have integration with Cisco and other vendors.

I have been using this solution for approximately 20 years.

I have not had any issue with the stability.

The scalability is excellent. We have approximately 600 people using this solution in our organization.

The technical support was excellent.

Previously I have used CapStone and Remedy.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The price of this solution is expensive.

I have evaluated Tanium.

For those wanting to implement this solution, I would advise using an expert.

When using this solution you have to expect you will need to continuously optimize it to get the most out of it.

I rate ServiceNow an eight out of ten.

ServiceNow enables us to transform IT as it's a business driver. In my mind, we can shift the way IT works to make it more business aligned, business focused, and business oriented. Having a tool that kind of helps IT think differently about how we deliver services is important to me.

We're rolling out service level management this year and part of that is because we had this foundation of our CMDB. Our business services are in there. Being able to report on things based on how our business service is impacted, it's going to be the first time technology's been able to do that at this company. That's exciting.

Speed of delivery is really at the forefront. Being able to do things faster removes those IT obstacles out of the way for our business users and lets them do what they need to do quicker. We're enabling our business to be more nimble without bogging them down with technology.

I feel like there should be perhaps more unit testing before patches are rolled out because every patch has broken our entire catalog. That's kind of the most time consuming areas to test because of volume. There's so many catalog items. Each one has to get looked at, the workflows, each step has to be done. Every patch has broken our entire catalog, and I'd love for that to go away.

From a user perspective, we noticed a slowdown when we moved from Eureka to Geneva, so I've got a lot business customers that are saying, "Man, your tool got slower." I don't have any stats behind it. It's running all the time.

We add users constantly. We onboard people and they are automatically added. We have a portal that's internal for our users that don't need to do changer class but they do need to request things in the catalog so those people are able to log in and request stuff.

I think the only thing where there was anything negative was now you have two tools in the interim so people still used Remedy for some of the ITIL processes and now they have ServiceNow for change. Then as we increased our capabilities in ServiceNow, more and more people were happier.

Just really for me, it's all about the business case. What's a success story to tell? What are you able to do now that you couldn't do before? Some of the things that I would showcase are the wild set that we used to be in as far as requests goes and now we have the catalog and we're growing that everyday. Also, having a business portal is a huge selling point. Anything where you can spin up a portal as easily as you can with ServiceNow and make IT approachable for a business user is important. Every time they patch, they break the entire catalog. They need to fix that.

We used ServiceNow for change management, release management, and event management. We were also making use of the solution's CSI. The modules of ServiceNow were all available to you, and you could use them.

I have a problem with the way the solution's price is calculated.

I have been using ServiceNow for 10 to 13 years.

I rate ServiceNow an eight or nine out of ten for stability.

I would recommend ServiceNow for larger organizations. We used to have an organization with over 10,000 users. In our current organization, up to 3,000 users are using ServiceNow.

The solution’s technical support is fine.

We implemented the solution through an in-house team.

For us, ServiceNow was really good for keeping everything under control. Everything was documented, logged, and on point. The setup of creating things was quite straightforward.

The use and misuse of the CMDB is something important. Since CMDB should be the heart of everything you have, transforming the CMDB into a repository of information is good enough. If you don't use the full management tool, you can have problems. In three months, you will have to review the CMBD again, or you will have to update it once again in six months.

It differs from organization to organization. It will be taken care of in organizations that have clear processes in place. It's not about the tool but about the maturity of the organization using it.

We used to have lots of integrations with our systems to create tickets automatically. We also had some security related event management activities. When we requested to change something in ServiceNow, it was done rapidly in a couple of days.

Have some consultants that have worked with ServiceNow before, help you with the process. You should try to implement ITIL in your organization. If ITIL is not understood by the organization, then you cannot have expectations that they will follow the way of working as they should.

The solution's automation is quite straightforward. You just need to know what you want to automate. There are several ways to integrate stuff and several ways to have some triggers.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

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.

I'm a ServiceNow consultant and my company is a service provider where we are deploying ServiceNow ourselves on-premises. Here it is primarily used as a service catalog and in BIZBOK-developed services and knowledge management.

As a ServiceNow partner, we also offer it in a ServiceNow-like cloud to end customers and we do consulting and projects with it as a third party. Our current customer sees especially heavy usage of ServiceNow, with between 100-150K accesses per month, and up to a million users who access it in total. We are one of many third parties who are involved in this project.

ServiceNow has helped us with lots of paper saving. It has unified everything in terms of non-IT service requests, with everything in one place.

I find almost all the features valuable. It can do nearly everything except make your coffee, as my colleagues always say. It's got pros and cons, like every software, but the good thing about it is that it has a very structured approach.

Data access is a bit difficult, where you sometimes wish you had a relational database for some queries. The flexibility of data access in general is a bit on the low end. Of course, there is flexibility in some ways, but when I need a certain combination of data for some report, it can become a challenge.

Other than that, there are a lot of minor improvements that could be made such as the debugging functionality in JavaScript, and in terms of use more generally, like joining tables and so on. I think it boils down to an extension of the right knowledge and user criteria.

I have been using ServiceNow for about four to five years. 

The stability is much improved. It's good.

It's difficult to say much about the scalability of ServiceNow because we're on-prem. Our impressions are good, but I don't know how it is in the ServiceNow cloud. Everybody says, "Yes, it's good." But with bad development, you can't maximize the performance of every system.

On the whole, it's good, and there are no real issues. We had lots of performance issues in the beginning, but that hasn't been the case for a long time now. I would say it's definitely had heavy usage, with about between 100-150K accesses per month.

We rarely need the tech support, but if you need help, there is help available.

There's no real alternative on the market currently, from my point of view.

Setup is not my forte, but because we are on-prem you can imagine that the setup is very special because we are not on a standard database nor is it a typical setup such as with ServiceNow in the cloud.

As one of the third parties, we implemented and run ServiceNow in an on-premises setup. For maintenance, it's difficult to say how many people are required. It's typically a handful for deployment and upgrades and so on - basically the IT operations staff. Of course, as a data center and everything behind it, on-prem is always a bit special.

I have seen ROI. I have not calculated it exactly, but we did some estimations and we do have a positive ROI from using ServiceNow.

Some time ago it was expensive, but large companies have special contracts. It's enterprise prices, and we're talking about millions per year.

Stay within the standard. This is the same advice as with SAP: try to stay in the standard and avoid customizing too heavily. I don't mean to say anything about additional development, but instead I would caution against trying to change the standard itself. And keep things simple. In large companies, this is not always emphasized as they tend to think complicated.

I would rate ServiceNow an eight out of ten.

I previously used the on-premise version of ServiceNow. It was a better fit for companies and banks because of their tech security protocols. But for my work with my current company, I am considering the cloud solution because we already have all the other software components in AWS.

The main features of ServiceNow that I use are incident approval management and the ability to link all the information we receive from the finance bureau service. We needed to track the different processes within the IT area and incident documentation. Then we gathered all the information and built a knowledge base. That's the central core functionality that I've been using, and I've seen immense benefits.

We are elaborating and defining the business processes, so I will believe that we will be able to avoid the older models for the second phase. But first, I wanted to have these incident and asset management models in place as a first phase of the implementation.

I've been using ServiceNow for work I've done with various clients for around eight years. I first used it with Wal-Mart International, and then we used it for one event with Brolin Management. I recently worked with Santander Bank, where we used ServiceNow for all the incident and assets management. Now, I help implement different service management tools at my current company, including ServiceNow.

I think ServiceNow is highly stable. These kinds of tools are used in a big company, and I haven't seen any issues in terms of the core platform. However, if we need to customize something, that would be the point to focus on because this would be something new, not a part of the standard flow for the tool.

I think ServiceNow is scalable in the short term. 

The solution has some built-in monitoring capabilities, so we escalate cases as they come. But sometimes the response to our requests is delayed.

Setting up ServiceNow is pretty standard because we want it to manage incidents and use it for other marketing, construction, and procurement areas. But, still, everything would be based on the different services we provide for their operations area. If you move forward with the cloud, I think the number of internal staff needed would be minor. It probably takes around two people to deploy and manage. In this case, we use some external consultants for all the development and maintenance.

For us, it's better to pay the licenses monthly, and I mean when we move ahead with the cloud deployment. I understand that the service includes hosting and licensing as a service as well as some downgoing costs probably. That will be all on the implementation side. It depends if we need some customization. We will need to consider that part as a consultancy. 

I will rate ServiceNow nine out of 10 because it's a little expensive compared to other tools, but it's a very good product from a technical standpoint.

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.