What needs improvement with ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus?

ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus could improve by offering a user-friendly environment similar to ServiceNow. It should also include more compatibility with different types of devices, especially concerning SNMP details for monitoring purposes. Enhancements in AI tools integration may also be beneficial.

Mostly that we can track the incidents, requests, and so on, making it the main purpose why we use the tool. We also can track contracts, their expiration, and so on. It is a side tool that is very useful. I think that the tool should try to streamline the user interface even more because there are a lot of options that can be offered to users. I think that we can expect some changes in the tool's UI, as maybe ManageEngine may add something to it, but for what we are using it, I would say that the tool is good. I don't have any specific ideas of what needs to be upgraded or changed.

The tool should be open to integration with other official tools, such as Jira, which is used by most companies for development activities. The tool itself is very good, but the only problem is integrating it with Jira, based on our business model.

The tool is under implementation, but during my evaluation, I asked about the CMDB (Configuration Management Database) module. ManageEngine team confirmed it is available. It should enable agent-based or agentless probing of assets, providing real-time data about availability, applications, and hardware changes. This would indirectly help with software compliance management. So, the CMDB should have correlation capabilities. For example, if I have licenses for ten different products, and I update the system with the number of licenses for each, it should probe the entire network and show the actual deployment against the license count. It should also alert me if there are any compliance breaches. ServiceDesk claims to have this feature, but I need to explore it further.

The product's asset management tool needs improvement. It operates on an agentless system, relying on the patch management tool for agents. It is time-consuming as users must run a script and log in to send back asset information to the server. With an agent-based approach, installation in the image would automatically provide updated asset information, ensuring accuracy even if users don't log in for an extended period.

In terms of enhancements, additional features for automatic asset discovery would be beneficial. Perhaps the ability to deploy an agent on the network to discover assets automatically. So, I would like to see potentially more automation features. Moreover, the reporting is not as good as Ivanti. So, ManageEngine could certainly improve on that.

We're comparing it to other ITSM systems. The main areas for improvement seem to be Active Directory integration and Single Sign-On (SSO) capabilities. So, I would like to have SSO as well.

ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus changes need to be done in the production environment directly. There is no facility to make changes in the DEV environment and then move the changes to PROD.

The application works in a straightforward method every time when it comes to the on-premises part. There is an application drive, log drive, and a few things that must be taken into control, even the application that requires AV exclusion and all those things. They need to work on the aforementioned area. It would be better if they could just bring up interface changes because, from the past five years, I don't see any difference in the way or look and feel of the application. It could be better if they just come up with something in that manner. There's a basic methodology for maintaining the application and its dependency on Postgres, and local SQL is an area that, if changed for the better, can prove to be great.

I would like to improve the task management module and analytics.

I think asset management took a hit recently. They changed the way they do it by moving it to their patch management software, which no longer supports an agent installed on the computers. In my opinion, this was a step backward for them, as I didn't need the patch management but rather the agents and remote capabilities that the agent brought without the additional costs and overhead. It still works via script running on the computer, but that's not the same as being able to install it and have it run or send a live feed.

A 360-degree view of the asset life cycle should be integrated with the service desk to provide better understanding and asset management.

We have problems with the customization of dashboards; developing them is very cumbersome and requires some knowledge of programming. In general, there are significant customization limitations to this solution. Our customers regularly ask for a dashboard to show additional details when they log an issue. They want to know the status of a ticket and whether the SLA has been violated. There is no feature for customization on some of the templates (e.g. Worklog). The reporting feature of ManageEngine is not sufficiently rich. The reports are very two-dimensional and lack analytics. Multiple data layers can't be put on a graph. You need to extract the data and use other apps to do analytics, and do what you need offline. It lacks analytics and the option for a single view. The support is not that great and there is no one for us to ask. We also have challenges when incidents go to an RCA or CR. It's unclear how the different modules work tandemly within the product. It is hard to find support to know how the product is designed. ManageEngine has no integration with WhatsApp which is a big drawback and one of the main reasons we're looking at other solutions. Also, we are looking for a product that has call center capabilities or a similar option to log requests through a phone call or through social media.

In terms of support, actually, they take a long time. They need to be faster. They have to work on technical support. This is number one. The UI for the app needs improvement. ManageEngine SDP hasn't had any changes in three years. There are no major changes in the UI, and other platforms get updated rather often.

The solution does not have an automated approach to integration with other ManageEngine products and third-party products. Additionally, brand promotion can be improved so that users know a good solution is available that is not very expensive.

There are many things. If you are a starter or small or medium-sized business, this tool is very good, but there are a few things that everybody would look forward to such as multi-tenancy and restricting some access but enabling it for a few people. Currently, I cannot configure more than one point of contact. I have the MSP version, and we have around 80 or 90 customers. I don't see the features where I can configure multiple contact points for a customer so that they're notified when we are having an outreach or when we want to send them a planned maintenance notification. Other things that are lacking are mapping SLAs with vendors and mapping back on the tickets. In their CMDB or asset module, they don't have an option to mandate unique serial numbers. They don't have a check for unique serial numbers. So, right now, users can enter duplicated information, and I want to prevent this.

ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus could improve by making asset management better. The professional version has asset management but it should be available in the free version, it would help my organization.

The interface is not the best. The user interface could be more intuitive.

ServiceDesk's reporting module could use an update. It looks outdated, and the interface could be more intuitive.

ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus could improve by having better integration with Microsoft Azure.

Security could be better. It would be better if ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus had really good defense products like BlackBerry. I can recommend BlackBerry for the defense part, but not the other things. For example, before we switched over to ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus, we had issues with mobiles switching off cameras, and now it doesn't happen at all.

The additional feature I'd like to see in the next release is related to self-service on the user side. I have this new environment of users at home and making them independent would be a good point to enforce. Improving the knowledge base also goes along with that.

We engage with customers or vendors from Europe looking at AIOps products as well as SOC, and one downside to the solution is there are no native integrations between the systems. We're not even aware of any. This is a bit of a concern for us. The problem I'm dealing with is now we have to employ people to do integration coding for us. We would love to have native integration between systems. ScienceLogic, Splunk, and Sumo Logic are three vendors we're considering currently, in a POC, for going forward with the AIOps side of things. From the SIEM perspective, from the SOC, we're dealing with LogPoint; for SOAR purposes we're using inbound SOAR. None of these systems can natively integrate into ManageEngine. However, all of these systems can integrate into ServiceNow. If we consider the complications in our world, for integration purposes, and the amount of work that needs to be done for all these systems to talk to one another, that's definitely something. If ManageEngine can say, "we're going to help you with this," then we will most likely stick with the product. ServiceNow can integrate, and there's a silent push towards ServiceNow, which I don't like because I'm quite keen on sticking with ME. ManageEngine should improve to help us to integrate the systems. Then there's a customization level that needs to be done from our end, and it's quite a big concern. We're basically putting together all systems and software packages.

As a partner, their technical support can respond better to the tickets. We provide deployment services and also support products as a partner. We get a lot of tickets from clients complaining about certain issues related to the system, but when we send or escalate an issue to the agent, sometimes, there is a delay. That's something that they could improve on. Because we are a local partner, we are able to copy to some employees who can try to push a ticket to close, but it would be best if they can respond a bit quicker.

ManageEngine has developed and implemented new features in its cloud version. I would like to see the features extended to the on-premises version. I would like to see the new trends and new technology in the IT department and in the industry implemented quickly.

Its reporting could be improved. The current list of predefined reports seems to be fine for most of the customers, but there should be some tools to allow us to create highly customized reports for measuring different KPIs. We should also be able to connect some kind of BI to it. We haven't yet implemented it, and we are currently evaluating it. We are looking for advanced integration options where we could integrate it with our SCCM and Azure environments as well as with other Office solutions. For direct communication with customers, we are looking for a chatbot or a similar feature.

I want friendly training courses without their ITSM ServiceDesk Plus. I'd like to understand more technical features due to the fact that I want to teach globally. I understand all the questions in the search engine. I want to find more technical information about the product.

In terms of what can be improved, although the user interface is friendly enough, I struggle finding how the tool operates, how to master using the tool. I think the user interface needs to be improved and needs to be enhanced to be more supportive to users.

Feature-wise, the reporting is not quite satisfactory. They could work on improving it in future builds. The solution, overall, is expensive.

Its reporting can be improved. It can have better analytics reports. Even though they provide integration with another tool called Analytics Plus to get those reports, it would be quite helpful to have them on the fly and out of the box. A lot of improvement is required in change management and release management. Their change management module is quite simple, and they need to do a lot of work on the change management module. The release management is out only on the cloud. It is not available in on-premises deployments. In the next release, I would like it to have effective project management. They do provide the project management and contracts management modules, but these modules need a bit of improvement.

It is sometimes a bit slow. If it can have a quicker response time, it would be good for users, service desk engineers, and technicians. For service requests, they don't have an SLA for each priority. For a service request, the SLA of response or resolution is only one irrespective of the priority. SLA should be different for each priority. For a ticket, there is no response SLA for the service request. For resolution SLA, that is, P1, P2, P3, or whatever you define, you still have the same SLA. It should be different.

The solution is quite extensive, and I’ve only used the sections related to project management. I’m not sure if it was lacking any features. For me, it had everything I needed. I’ve never experienced any technical issues at all. The only issue for us is the pricing, which is quite high in comparison with the competition. The timing reporting module, and how it's used is a bit difficult to understand. Everything related to project management is quite extensive and it needs to be simplified. At first, our users didn't want to use it, because it seemed a bit complex.

The documentation could be improved.

I think the knowledge base management component could be improved a little bit. Compared to other ITSM tools, ServiceDesk will have to step up their knowledge base tools. If they could make it open enough to be integrated with other applications or other systems it would be very useful.

At first, the interface is not so easy to use and it's a bit complicated, but you do get used to it over time. We should be able to monitor the performance of assets, not only documents. For example, printers. We should be able to monitor ink levels and get notifications when the ink is low. In another operation manager I use, they send me a notification when the device is off or has something to perform. This is a great feature. I'd like to see things like that added to the solution.

Improvement is needed in the Software Assets Management functionality.

The main thing that I find lacking in the product is the ability to do custom reporting. They have canned reports, but apart from that, I am unable to define my own reports based on my needs. It requires a lot of external customization. I would also like to see better integration with external software. It is possible, but it is tough. The APIs are not very flexible, so you really have to write a lot of code to create that integration. Opening it up for external integration would allow for easier customization of the existing autobox workflows. It would help with the user's perception. One final issue, on the topic of business rules, is that more can be implemented. I have seen CRM systems over the past twenty years that can do much more than this. For example, you should be able to customize your workflow completely. I would like to draw my own workflow and go with that. Also, I would like to be able to write a custom feature and include it in the workflow. These things are missing from the product.

When I think of improvements the first thing that comes to mind would have to be the active management function. I have encountered some bugs with this aspect of the tool. I wouldn't necessarily identify these issues as bugs, they're more like processes issues associated with the scanning assets; the process could be improved.

They could improve the screens.

I expected more features than it has. The flexibility is missing. I was also expecting a different level of configuration and segregation.

People ask to implement the product not only for their IT help desk, as we do that, but also for HR and general affairs, allowing them to use SDP for their services.

For ITIL functions, it should be more complex, including financial functions. We are expecting it to be easier for customization within workflows and templates.