What needs improvement with ServiceNow?

ServiceNow has had a similar pattern, but when it comes to third-party integrations, Uddin appears to be more flexible than ServiceNow. ServiceNow might need to improve its capabilities to integrate with third-party tools. Due to differences in naming conventions and data fragmentation between systems, we need to address compatibility issues by modifying naming conventions, altering fields, and making adjustments as necessary. ServiceNow has default field functionalities that may not align with those the MagOne system provides. Therefore, customization will be required to ensure compatibility and meet specific requirements.

We are not supposed to access outside our network.

I would like to see a mobile version of ServiceNow.

The installation and deployment of ServiceNow can be a bit challenging. One major issue I've encountered is that ServiceNow doesn't provide the same mobile responsiveness or features that we used to enjoy with other tools. For example, with Splunk, our response times were about five minutes, and we could manage alerts and incidents directly from our mobile devices. Our development team has been trying to implement similar functionalities in ServiceNow for the past three to four months, but so far, these features have not been successfully integrated. Splunk even provides a wireless call feature from the mobile.

Improving the quality of consulting services is essential and can lead to significant enhancements. The user interface for accessing assistance sometimes disconnects.

The solution could be made cheaper. Machine learning and artificial intelligence should be introduced in the next release.

There is room for improvement in price.

The platform price needs improvement. System deployment and automation capabilities could be within the platform, similar to competitors like Ivanti and BMC. At present, we have to rely on third-party products for the same.

There is a concern about the integration point of view, particularly the virtual agent. Currently, we are working on integration with Teams and the virtual agent. Now, the chatbot and portal are available. A pop-up message shows the redactions button if you click on anything in the chatbot conversations. This redirects to the portal. It should open, and the virtual agent should be integrated that way.

From an HR standpoint, if users can have a very integrated onboarding or offboarding process between ServiceNow and Workday, then it can give a very good employee experience.

It should enhance its offerings by providing the chance to obtain course certifications at an affordable fee. The functionality of the mobile application is still not entirely clear or optimized. The UI of the mobile application needs improvement.

The pricing structure could be more budget-friendly.

The biggest complaint I have is that the ServiceNow search engine is not very robust. The term has to be typed correctly. It has to be exact. For example, if you misspelled a term in Google, it will give you suggestions indicating that this is what you may have been looking for. ServiceNow does not do that. I would like to see something like that. It would make it a lot better and a lot easier to use.

We can't update bulk tickets using a simple query language. Jira lets us update hundreds of tickets with one command. In ServiceNow, you need to select each task separately to close them. The dashboards could also be more user-friendly. Monday.com has better dashboards.

The solution's stability and pricing need improvement.

Automatic "security attributes" populated from the inventory-module.

I have enjoyed all the features. There is not any feature that I have missed or didn't have.

The interface can be a bit more intuitive.

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.

That features are already there, however, maybe they could have some tutorials or give more power to the users versus having specialist administrators doing things. There's a big knowledge base. There's a lot of know-how that's saved in there, however, actually allowing people to do their own thing is lacking a bit. I know there are functionalities for using it on other platforms. However, specifically for iPhone or Android, if there's something where I'm walking around and working in different offices, if I'm able to look up information directly, instead of going back to my laptop, that would be ideal. Making a mobile version would be helpful. It's pretty customized already. I don't think there's anything that would be an area to fix. I know that I actually have the special panel for all the features that I use, like creating tickets, managing hardware. Anything that can be integrated into especially our other types of features, such as SCCM, Microsoft SCCM, being able to update hardware, instead of manually going inside there would be good.

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.

This solution needs to be improved for global use. Currently, it's very oriented to the processes and needs of the US customer base, like their compliance solution or GRC (Governance, Risk, and Compliance), and not so much for customers from other parts of the world. Some users may like the things that ServiceNow is improving, but those are very oriented to users based in the United States and Europe. In Latin America which is the geographical region we work in, it's not very useful. Some of the customers are more interested in other solutions. Sometimes they put aside ServiceNow because it is focused on the needs of the customer base in Europe and the US. This is one of the disadvantages I see. Another disadvantage is the level of maturity that the customer has to have to get value from a solution like ServiceNow. The customer needs to have a great level of maturity. A company that is starting its journey with ITSM wouldn't find ServiceNow very useful, because sometimes there's a considerable amount of code you need to know to be able to implement ServiceNow. This will depend on the complex needs that a customer may have, for the customer to find ServiceNow as a useful solution. Depending on the level of maturity they have, they would need that amount of customization. I don't see the need for coding as a problem. The problem I see is that the level of maturity that the customer needs to have is high. There's quite a lot of features in ServiceNow. Currently, we haven't had any sort of need that ServiceNow and the features that they already have, don't resolve. There's no feature that I can think of right now that I'd like to be added in the next release. There are some guidelines that ServiceNow has that automate the implementation, but they're available only for ITSM and ITOM. It would be good if those automated guidelines are also made available for other ServiceNow solutions like customer service management, configuration management, and asset management. Another area for improvement is the lack of clarity in terms of how this solution is licensed. It is usually very complicated for customers to know how they are being charged for the licenses that they consume. In most of the ServiceNow solutions, this problem is persistent.

The AAR might require further improvements. There are areas such as technology management that have scope for further improvement. Their cloud management is also not that great compared to other products. There could be some additional capability for discovery. As it matures, it needs to showcase to users what is possible within the solution.

ServiceNow has a user interface that mimics a web-base and is easy on the eyes however, it is too fluid. Currently, we are unable to audit notes. ServiceNow should be more organized and structured so it enables us to classify notes.

The pricing could be lowered. It's pretty high. We have had a few issues with the Agent Client Collector setup, however, that's probably at our end for some network blocking reason, or something like that. Their GUI could be updated. It's a little bit old-looking right now.

The interface, in my opinion, is not very good. It's very unclear where the status is and what steps I need to take next. I don't think the layout is very good. The interface requires an upgrade. I'm not sure if I'm using the most recent version, which could be the issue. However, I don't have control over which versions we use, and I do find the interface to be very cumbersome, there is a lot of information here, and it's difficult to find what you are looking for. I find myself occasionally looking at the request and wondering if I already approved it or not because the status is a little strange. It's not great. It's not very intuitive.

Its setup is tough. It takes a lot of knowledge and a lot of experience. In terms of features, we're pretty happy with the product as it is. They make regular improvements. We look at them, evaluate them, but we haven't seen anything that we wanted to use it for, though we continuously reevaluate our tools to see where we can expand our capabilities.

The need to improve their technical support services. Their dashboards are very, very basic. Maybe if they could develop some sort of very good fancy-looking, visible, graphical, visible kind of appearance. The pricing of the solution could be better. It's a bit high. When we are monitoring, for example, a device, an S-Switch, we can create insights. We can segregate the LAN, and create a VLAN. When we create those VLANs, we should be able to monitor those VLANs. The same with storage systems. The LANs, through the cable space level, should be able to be monitored.

There is a need to learn scripting because as in the case of all the ITSM tools, scripting is needed for customization. If you're not very comfortable with scripting, then you may feel that you cannot do everything in ServiceNow without learning scripting. The licensing costs are high for companies in Tunisia.

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 am not a fan of ServiceNow. The menus and the interface need improvement. It feels like a shopping cart and like I am shopping on the internet. The graphics of the menu could be better. The interface is not user-friendly. To me, ServiceNow is a money pit. It takes a lot of money to manage it.

Like all other IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS subscription cloud providers, ServiceNow is constantly improving by building new capabilities to expand the breadth and depth of its offerings while increasing its activities with partners to build more capabilities. As ServiceNow and its partners/customers expand the capabilities, I see new vertical applications being created (currently underway for TELCO and other industries). Stay tuned for more updates that not only provide new capabilities but also enhance existing ones.

It could be easier to use. It's a bit complicated and the user experience isn't exactly easy. It's too complicated and there are too many options.

The solution has the same drawback as that of the DMC remedy. The capital expenditure neeed to get the tool up and running is extensive. We are in the process of moving to a cloud-based solution. This and the issue of the solution's pricing should be addressed.

Need to focus on small business like Licensing, packaging

The solution should have more of the latest version benefits, of which I have found only a limited number. It is annoying that ServiceNow keeps on changing back to Quebec every six months. Content should be added as soon as it changes. Flushing is upgrading. I also wish to see new features added occasionally. The performance analytics and services operation module should be addressed. It should be a free plugin for the recording dashboard. We are often in need of a report, such as how many users are using the service or the per hour platform. But, this requires us to install a new page plugin for a static change. I would find this improvement helpful within the next three days.

The marketing needs improvement. This platform can really do a lot and I don't think they do it justice for what it can do. I have to go out there and market things. Whereas I think if their teams were a little more in tune with what they could actually deliver, they would do a better job selling it. I still haven't seen a holistic picture of the whole platform and what they can really do. I don't know if that's intentional or if they're not selling it. The visuals are the one area where there is opportunity for improvement. The reporting can be difficult, but they are making it a little easier to create reports or introduce a wizard to help you walk through them. You have to know the entity-relationship diagram to get the right data and make the right connections. The visual representation of the data is an area where they fall short of, but they do have a partner who is native to their product. It does a much better job visualizing the data. I don't know if that is there, the way they're closing the gap. I would like to see, from a business process automation perspective, where an engineer or architect could implement the automation. You don't have to write the spec and hand it off to a ServiceNow developer. For some of the things that are happening with the other BPM tools, I'd like to see ServiceNow be a little more user-friendly. Another thing I'd like to see is that they have a representation and their service taxonomy of a more modern application for events business logic, as well as APIs. As it is now, it's still in the application and infrastructure perspective, but that's not totally a modern construction of an application.

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 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.

They could be more competitive with their licensing. We went to roll out asset management discovery and at the time they charge per network device only and you didn't get a price break until you were at 5k devices. To me, I would change the licensing to discovery of all devices. We made do with SCCM instead, but the limitation with using that is that we can only discovery over one domain. CreatorCon is an event for Servicenow customers to show off what they've done with the tool. Servicenow benefits because they can partner with the customer to make a solution a permanent solution in the tool.

The reporting, which also includes dashboards, needs to be improved. Both dashboards and reporting require subject matter experts. A lot of end-user configuration and functionality comes with ServiceNow and it is not bad, but when I want to do something slightly more sophisticated, I've got to get a ServiceNow subject matter expert to get those dashboards all set up. One of the big reasons why that's so difficult is that ServiceNow is effectively a whole bunch of databases, and almost every module is fundamentally a database, so pulling information from multiple modules is painful. The key thing here is the Time Tracking piece, which is rather important because that's what helps you automate the percentage done inline. Getting a report that shows combined information from Time Tracking and Project Management into a single view is difficult. There should be the ability to turn on and off portions of Project Management. I'm not asking them to do a finance portion of Project Management through the interface. Currently, there are hundreds of fields that project managers are looking at and trying to decide whether they should fill them out or not. Being able to configure the user interface without a subject matter expert would be really great. When you want to get a little more value out of the product and pull data from multiple modules and do something that isn't built-in and is a user-configurable thing, it gets ugly. Currently, as soon as you install the new version, you've got to go back there and make all those tweaks. There should be just a configuration file that goes to the new version. When a new release comes out and I've tweaked it, I shouldn't have to go back and manually tweak everything again. When we look at ITSM pieces, there is a knowledge base that works really well. I feel that the Project Management module does not leverage the knowledge base the way it should. I don't think it needs to be a separate knowledge base. There should be links. Currently, if I am configuring a project and looking at a particular tab or field, and I want to know more details about that, there is no simple way other than to go into the knowledge base and do a search. There is no simple way for me to just click and see the approved knowledge base article about that particular tab or field. There is no built-in ability to get to these articles, and the customer would have to build it. All the stuff is in the knowledge base, but I am constantly required to go and do a search and find it. After that, I have to try and figure out if this is the approved one. Most knowledge bases are designed so that your end users can submit articles, at least successful ones. You've got to get the subject matter expertise into the knowledge articles, and there is a clear delineation between the ones that are approved versus the ones that work right. I want both types of articles in there, but I want to be able to delineate which ones are the approved ones and tie them in Project Management. This functionality is already there in some other areas, but it is not there in Project Management. Not being able to link that knowledge base in a more fluid way is a big miss because it just makes adoption much harder. Resource management should be easier. This is an area where I would love to see an improvement. The nature of ServiceNow is that it tends to be a bunch of fields. It is a bit like an Excel spreadsheet. You're in a software interface, but you've got a bunch of rows and columns. Other than dashboards, there are a lot of rows and columns views that often do not help you to easily see and manage resources. More graphical and more click-and-drag ability around resource management would be really good. The data is in there, and you can run dashboards, reports, and stuff like that, and very often, get the information in a somewhat consumable view. However, it tends to have frozen columns. It would be amazing if they can make resource management a little bit more graphical. There are other solutions that I've seen where resource management was a more visual experience.

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.

When it comes to changing some of the features, I would like a little more leeway. This may not apply to every version but there are certain capabilities that you have to specifically order a la carte in order for the developers or your administrators to have access. Having more integration without having to pay the a la carte, otherwise, you have to put in a ticket and have it approved, and if not you have to find a workaround for the solution.

if I consider from the IT operations management side, ServiceNow is pretty premature on some things, especially the discovery, while the other tools like Micro Focus and BMC Remedy, those that have been in the market for quite some time. ServiceNow is evolving itself in the discovery piece of the future.

What could be improved in ServiceNow is the response time or loading time. It's slower, but it could be based on the license you have. Everybody here in our company says it is slow whenever we access it, so that needs improvement. The user interface can also be improved. They should make it better than what it is currently. It should be more user-friendly. An additional feature I'd like to see in ServiceNow has something to do with its out of the box pattern. Currently, I'm using it mainly for CMDB. Each company will have different hardware or configuration items, but ServiceNow only provides certain scripts or patterns to discover all these onto the CMDB. If there's any new device, we'll need to customize the out of the box pattern, so maybe that's a feature that can be improved. With any device you add, everything should be added on the CMDB using whatever out of the box pattern or script is provided in ServiceNow. Currently, that is not the case. If we have a new device that is added to our company's network, we have to go and customize the existing ServiceNow pattern to discover that device. This is the problem we're facing.

There's always a room for improvement in terms of the ServiceNow UI. For customers, the UI is something that is a continuous improvement, so the UI would be the only thing in the platform that needs improvement.

Their user interface is old-fashioned and outdated, and it can be more friendly for the eye. They can improve the user experience. We should be able to have different UI frameworks. Currently, they only do Angular, and sometimes, you can do React, but they can be more open-minded in this regard. They are quite good in case management, but they can work more on case management. They can also adhere more to BPMN 2.0.

The technical support SLA can be improved because sometimes they take a long time to answer our queries.

The RPA needs improvement. That's a new area for them that they're just entering into now. Their user interface, their UX design, and their portal are all in the process of being improved. The footprint in non-IT assets, so managing assets outside of IT. That means building new CMDB class structures. Can they manage a hospital device, a manufacturing device, an oil-rig device, not just a server or a laptop or a printer? That's where they need to massively improve their reach. Reaching beyond IT asset management is the biggest challenge to ServiceNow right now. It would be great if there was an accelerator or a fast-track tool or method to consider net new use cases for ServiceNow. Something almost like a solution innovation workshop environment, where you can test business ideas and work out which parts of the ServiceNow workflow can support those ideas - like a modeling tool.

It needs a more intuitive interface for identifying issues. A bit more natural language processing or something like that would be helpful in understanding my queries. There should be greater integration with other enterprise applications. We're using Microsoft, Oracle, and other applications, and it would be good to have a greater integration on some of the immediate hiccups that you have with these services. It doesn't mean that when we have a problem with using another application, ServiceNow should be able to fix it, but ServiceNow should be able to alert us to things. There should be a bit more automation or integration.

An area for improvement would be the accessibility of downloaded and compressed files.

It's moving at a very fast pace. It is difficult for developers or engineers to keep up with it. That's the only issue. For the customer it's expensive.

ServiceNow is not meeting our expectations. The contract module is quite rudimentary. It doesn't support contract line items, which are subdivisions of contracts in VA. The result is that we're not able to track those sorts of assets down to the product level. I'd like to see support for contract line items included in the next release.

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.

One thing I don't care for is the reporting and the way it functions. Exporting a report, from a view, initiates a rerun of the query in the background - highly inefficient. In terms of the implementation, there seems to be a dearth of basic table joins, on initial install, necessitating the creation of your own database views to get seemingly related data to act like related data. In other words, it's popular to have incidents linked to changes, and linked to problems, and linked to other types of records. And vice versa, you could have an incidents caused by a change. You could have an incident that has a problem record built off of it. However, there are several modules where, if you don't create table joins - for example, for demand records and demand tasks - between those two, then the only option is pull two reports (one for Demands, one for Demand Tasks), and manually merge them outside of the tool. It's highly inefficient. That is something that is a deficiency within the tool design overall. The initial setup is a bit complex (could have been designed to be profile-driven, as an alternative). While I recognize that it's a popular thing to do, due to poor design, update sets have to be moved manually, from platform to platform, easily introducing errors (sequence, origin, etc.) along the way. I've seen far better promote-to-production schemes with other tools.

ServiceNow's mobile app should be seamless and it is not right now. Whatever I'm able to do through a laptop or a browser, I should be able to do via mobile. That would be a big advantage.

The solution could improve by making the CMDB integrate with a CI better to allow it to be seen across multiple platforms. Additionally, an option to easily make tickets private or not generally visible. ServiceNow has to set up the individual tickets and there is not an easy way for us to do it ourselves. There are integrations we can do that requires outside people to help us expand, such as business continuity and other areas. It can be complicated to expand the solution which could be made easier.

The price is a huge barrier in the Portugese market when it comes to implementing ServiceNow.

While we consider the solution to be fine, a weakness of it is that it is not on-premises. Security and privacy issues should be addressed in respect of the IT operations data and data storage. They should not be on a shared infrastructure, but on the SaaS in isolated storage. The solution should offer better security when it comes to storing data.

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.

One of the areas that need improvement is when the product was implemented, they did not do a very good job of explaining all these features and functions, and capabilities of the tool. That could have been an implementation issue on our organization's side. This could have happened by not including end-users in order to get their input or to understand what this tool offers. It was kind of just pushed out. For example, while the tool could potentially do a hundred things, only 20 of the capabilities were explained. The other 80 we have to figure out on our own. It could have been explained and rolled out better, however, that could have been just an implementation issue on our side as well. It became kind of complex to set it up without a general lack of knowledge of the particular feature-function capabilities. Features and capabilities could have been explained better to the end-users.

Vulnerability management could be improved. Also, integration with tools such as Microsoft Defender ATP needs improvement. The price is on the higher end.

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.

In an upcoming release, there should be more administration tools.

There aren't any improvements that I could suggest off top of my head, as it's a well-informed well-structured solution. From a business perspective or an individual, IT perspective, there isn't much to change at all. Some companies may find that adding as many documents as they like to an incident makes the solution problematic. Once a change request has been created once it's been approved and been submitted, there is no way to go in on that particular change request and submit an additional task. You would have to revert the change, then submit an additional task for a group to act on. I'd like it if we had the ability to, once the task had been approved and created, go in and create an additional task for a particular group to action. That's definitely one thing I would want to make a change to.

For starters, the mobile capability is very European-focused and my primary work location is actually the Middle East. ServiceNow doesn't cater to the Middle Eastern market. For this reason, we actually had to develop our own solutions in order to accommodate our customers that need an interface in Arabic. ServiceNow doesn't support that. It doesn't have a language patch for that at all. In addition, having a ServiceNow portal that has to be accessed via a browser on a mobile device is not always ideal for customers. Having a mobile application that specifically caters to those aspects, that provides users with access through the ServiceNow portal, is very important.

They can maybe improve the area of agile project management. They do have user storyboards and other things, but we kind of lean on Jira for that work. This is perhaps an area that could be looked at a little more.

When ServiceNow adds new features we have seen a tendency that they are very immature. They may release items too soon. In a company where you need to tweak and adjust, then I think there are so many improvements to be done. If you have advanced questions, technical support often doesn't know the answer.

The licensing needs to be divided into tiers in order to attract lower-level users. Right now, the licensing is kind of an all or nothing and so what happens is, is that either somebody has full access or they don't have any access due to the way the licensing works. There is this kind of view for ITIL purposes access that we kind of need, and we don't have access to it. If you think of RACI, it's informed access. You would need a full license to be able to do it. And we just don't. It really caused us a level of visibility loss. Basically, what the licensing offers now is just for doers. There's no viewer role. It really needs a viewer role or an approver role level of licensing without a doer role license having to be issued. If you move away from the out-of-the-box configurations, the initial implementation can get complex and take a while.

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.

The level of complexity and the level of discovery are the two areas that can be improved. Its UI needs to evolve. They focus a lot on cool colors and other little things, which don't bring value in terms of functionality. They need to focus less on presentation and more on the functionality within the UI. Its discovery mechanism should be improved. There is a component in ServiceNow that discovers the assets, but it doesn't do an immediate discovery, and there is a lag. If I want to open a ticket for a laptop or an asset, that asset needs to exist within ServiceNow for me to be able to say that I need to have its disk space or memory increased. It is referred to as a CI or configuration item in ServiceNow. Sometimes, ServiceNow doesn't discover these items, and as a result, I cannot open a ticket and tag that system or asset. If a system was introduced to the environment last week and it is still not listed, it becomes a problem. I will either have to wait or manually enter that system or asset. So, if I have a laptop with only 8 GB of memory and I want to request 16 GB of memory, I won't be able to do that in ServiceNow because my system or asset hasn't been discovered yet. Discovery is not immediate, and there is a lag.

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

It's a great platform, but there's still room for improvement. As the solutions stands now, you do need a lot of previous experience to use it. It would be great if they could develop some use case templates. This would be beneficial for a small and medium-sized businesses as they rely on their development teams. It's a multipurpose tool. If it could be further developed and specialized within the brand, different organizations could more easily implement it.

I would like to see more functionality in terms of custom workflows, not impacting the overall platform health.

The customization that we are doing for the needs of our organization are difficult to do and could be improved. In the a future release, if they have not done so already, they should include cognitive capabilities features which we are currently lacking.

There is inherent complexity with this tool because of the number of things that it can do.

Currently, we are finding it a bit difficult to monitor the subscriptions that are being used. The reporting feature related to this can be improved. Its ITOM functionality can be improved. BMC does a better job than ServiceNow in terms of capturing utilization and other such things.

The user interface could be much improved, and the developer tools and sets can be improved greatly, they are lacking.

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.

The customer service management is the grown product. INow I don't have much skill, but I think that could be an excellent complement for ITSM.

It should have more artificial intelligence for business and work capabilities. The community is not so active. There must be initiatives to make the community talk more and share more information.

We find it good in general. Obviously, there are areas of improvement for every capability. As they evolve more, if they keep on adding more intelligence into the capabilities, it will improve. The improvement areas are more integration across the landscape and more intelligence for the overall capability of the solution.

The Software Asset Management feature can be improved. We would like to see more features for the Software Asset Management functionality. Its price can also be better. It is currently more expensive than other solutions.

All the screens are similar. It's the same platform for everything and you need to familiarize yourself with it. In the past, you used to have one screen per application. Now, you have everything integrated into one. Everybody can manage the same screen and they need to navigate into the same screen as the Internet Explorer with a toolbar with the categories and look for the things you want to see or the models you want to use. This is something that is a little different from a traditional way of work in Argentina when you have different applications, and now, in this case, you have it all in one. It's on the same screen with all the models in a toolbar which does impact me. It's a new way of seeing things. In the past, you used to have a lot of publications. Now, in this case, you have the ability to have all in one. It's something new for a lot of people, and it's a change. That means we need to adapt to this change. For some people, it will not be easy.

I don't like the UI. Compared to other products that I have been using, it is not as user-friendly.

A new user does need training or time to learn the solution before jumping in. It was very hard in the beginning to understand everything. I couldn't find the models I needed at the time.

I find ServiceNow to be a little bit clunky. If I need to report an issue they have a number of different options. I can report an issue, I can ask a question, I can make a request and it has varying levels of importance or levels of attention required. I find that what's required to submit is not always clear. For example, I was once trying to import an issue and it required that I submit a screenshot. I kept clicking to try and get through and there were some paper clips in the rear upper corner that I didn't notice and I didn't know were required. That kind of issue bugs me about it. The guidelines are not as easy to use. I think it's a little bit clunky. It's not user-friendly.

Integration capabilities can improve. ServiceNow has a roadmap, however, native integrations in addition to the citizen-developed scopes would be ideal. The pricing seems confusing, with the integration hub being most confusing. I believe our firewall rule change request form is a custom form, but it has a serious drawback. If I submit such a request and need to make a correction to it before it is approved, there isn't any way for me to do so. The request has to first be rejected with the creation of a sub-task in order to edit it before it is resubmitted for approval.

There are no outstanding gaps or deficiencies that I face at the moment for my business or operational needs. That said, I am interested to see the firm's strategic plans for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML), and how the particular areas it will expand on from its existing investments (that feature, for example, in its ITSM Pro and CSM Pro modules). Our AMS business will benefit from further automation of the more mundane tasks as we continue to develop the platform's configurations - including the streamlining / automation of our change control workflow for faster deployment (critical when tackling the very frequent upgrade cadences of Oracle, Workday, Coupa, etc.).

I find some features are difficult to use. For example, the creation of service catalog forms. Creating service catalog forms could be made easier. In the next release, I would like to see some of the features and processes made to be simpler to use. For example, creating the service catalog forms, doing the CMDB, and integration with other systems have to be made easier to use.

There should be fewer clicks and faster integrations between solutions. Too much information needs to be entered when transferring between solutions. Obvious logic does not always seem to apply when transferring tasks between workflows. Having said this, the availability of these many workflows and solutions on one platform is the strength of ServiceNow. New development of new features is not as flexible as one would expect, global adherence to rules and regelations seem to bog down the development and release process.

The major area for improvement for our needs would be monitoring the metrics of the times to acknowledge and resolve issues and escalations. For example, if there is an incident which is not acknowledged within a certain period of time, or the resolution of the incident exceeds a certain period of time, it can be escalated to the next levels. That is one of the things you're looking for which is not available with ServiceNow. The second feature I would be looking for is integration with different tools, like Bugzilla, Microsoft Informer, and Jira. Jira has integration, in fact. Teams in different organizations use different tools, so integrating those tools would be really helpful.

This is an expensive solution and I think that could be reduced. What I've noticed from talking to some of our clients is that most are not renewing their licenses because it's so expensive. Pricing is one of the main factors customers check when comparing tools and solutions on the market. I think an additional feature that they could include would be a defect management system that ServiceNow doesn't currently have. It would be the best product in the market if they included that. It would make it a one-stop solution. They already have the incident management, problem and change management. Everything is there. So if they include this defect management, then it would definitely be the best in its category. I would recommend Servicenow should include the defect management feature like JIRA.

Security needs some improvement. The governance, security incident management, cloud management, and the security module are getting better. Service mapping could be less complicated. The configuration, and running it appropriately, but that's a difficult thing to do overall. It needs to be more cost-effective because it can be pricey. I would love to see ServiceNow create a solid mid-market entry point for it. They tried it in the past and it failed. That was ServiceNow Express.

Transparency in the pricing model needs to be improved.

I do not like the user interface. I would like to see a more streamlined process to assign tickets to support people.

There are Virtual Task Boards in the tool in the latest releases. There are many of them in the Scaled Agile Framework. There is some room there for improvement. It's really quite promising but, at the same time, it could be improved and I believe it will be improved soon.

For healthcare, which is a pretty audited environment, there are no concrete solutions for digital signatures, apart from our license with Adobe, so it requires orchestration. That is one area for improvement. Apart from that, initially, we struggled with financial forecasting and financial management in the PPM module. That needs improvement along with the IntegrationHub which came out in a recent release. It's still in its initial stages. That could grow into a more solid solution that could be more helpful.

Earlier, ServiceNow had the ability where you could build your own UI. The standard UI is very restricted. It doesn't look as good, compared to Remedy. Building your own UI requires some additional coding, but the standard UI is not that good when compared to Remedy's UI. When it comes to reference fields, there are some limitations where you aren't able to use them, like in relationship queries. In Remedy, when you click a menu, you get options directly, whereas here, if you use a reference field, it points you to a different form. So the UI experience totally changes for the end user. These are some of the ways ServiceNow could improve the UI, out-of-the-box.

ServiceNow is divided up into a lot of modules, so I'll give an example, instead of going into every single module. For me, there's a real opportunity, especially within the IT Service Management suite, to give a much better overall view of the workflow that individuals have across the different applications. At the moment, a lot of information is quite siloed in the different tables in ServiceNow. There is a real opportunity to present, in a centralized way, some form of universal work list, to give better ideas around demand and supply of resources, and then help prioritize that work. The only other thing that I'd say about ServiceNow, in general, is commercially related around licensing, and it's a big inhibitor for a lot of our customers, especially those who are innovators on the platform. I've got a couple of really good example clients where they are limited in what they can do with the product. If they were to do what they wanted to do, the licensing that would come about, from a platform runtime licensing perspective, would mean it wouldn't have the same value proposition. An improvement area, to summarize, would be better licensing for when clients are trying to be innovative on the platform.

HR Service Management is one module that needs a lot of improvement because it's a pretty new module. It was introduced in the last two years. It's becoming more mature day by day, but there is a lot of scope for improvement in that module.

Change Management is the area I have found that this tool can be improved because there are so many fields which are missing, such as urgency of the customer request and how the priority is defined. These are some of the areas in which I found that BMC Remedy is much better than ServiceNow.

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.

Where it could be improved is Discovery. This may sound odd since I just praised the value of ServiceNow Discovery, but improvements to its automatic detection, the breadth of devices, and the depth of devices covered, as well as keeping up with new technologies, are all essential. Microsoft has caused some issues recently with its decision to move away from SNMP and WMI in favor of PowerShell management. ServiceNow will need to make changes to move away from these deprecated services and to discover these devices. Discovery engines universally rely upon SNMP to detect, at least at an initial level, what type of device they are talking to. Without SNMP, some other platform will need to advertise the device and its capabilities. Most applications offer API (ideally REST-based) connectivity and ServiceNow should expand upon its use of these connections.

The Service Portal could be improved. There are some things in it which are somewhat difficult for me to understand.

It's not very secure, it's web-based, and I prefer Remedy. Both the security and the web interface could be improved.

There's one that I would like to see improved to reduce the cost of our ServiceNow, related to the resetting and unblocking of passwords for users who forget their passwords. We had a conversation about this with ServiceNow. We don't have a huge amount of password reset requests, but the minimum package of resets that ServiceNow offers is much more than we need. In conversations with other companies that have a similar profile to ours, they complained about the same thing: "Why should I have to buy a minimum number of password resets, when that amount is much more than I need?" They should have some kind of scaling of the reset package, like zero to 100, 101 to 300, etc. That would be a little bit more useful for us. That package is very expensive. It's more expensive than if I were to have someone in-house who was dedicated to doing those tasks.

I would like the reporting aspect to be better, including the graphs. It could have some way for us to easily to export to a csv or spreadsheet so that if a graph cannot be provided by ServiceNow itself, we would be able to use other applications to create them. Also, if there was a feature that enabled us to interact with end users directly within ServiceNow, like an instant-messaging type of feature, that would be great. Another nice feature would be a way to easily to assign tickets and incidents to the techs who will be working on them. That could be better. Other than that, the system seems to be working just fine.

Some enhancements to the self-service platform would be helpful. That part is still a little barebone. There are some things that they could do better that we have suggested to them. Also, the mobile app is not bad, but it's limited. They are going to be working on that, I'm sure, over the years.

* The ability to embed help information onto the screens. * The scalability needs improvement.

We would like to have an Asset Management and/or Project Management feature enabled in this version and in the IT Service Management edition. The Express edition does not allow the option for scripting.

It's missing monitoring capabilities.