JIRA Service Management Reviews

We are using Jira Service Management along with a series of other tools. We use it primarily for developing our knowledge management and for scaling our service-level agreements management. 

There are two things that I value very much about this product. One is the service levels management – the SLA agreement management part of it – and knowledge management.

The other part that I haven't used as much, but I do value, is the reporting and analytics part of it.

When looking at the overall suite of tools, I know there's a problem with the administration side of things since I have never come across a person who I would say is an expert in the administration side of things.

Some Jira products, or particularly this one, have a duplication of entries problem. That needs to be sanitized on a regular basis and that can itself prove cumbersome if the administrator is not a subject matter expert. 

The training manuals, patches, and release notes could be improved to be a bit more accessible. In the next release, this product should improve on the educational side to include webinars and training sessions. 

Also, I would like something that can measure better performance output.

We're looking to use it more, particularly in the context of incident management and problem resolution. However, we're finding that, like everything else, there are always challenges with every tool. We've had to look at getting more training done because it's quite a steep curve for people who haven't used the solution. It's only a handful of us that have actually really been exposed to the Jira suite of tools, and we're gradually taking our time with it.

The vendor, who is no longer in business, negated to tell us that the total cost of ownership was going to be quite steep. So normally you have tools where the total cost of ownership over a period of time, means it pays for itself either in terms of how you use it or in terms of how you implement it if you're servicing other third-party clients. However, because of the pandemic, our total cost of ownership has become a bit longer and it's taking more time to get to speed with how to get to use the tool, and how to get it customized in a particular manner. And then, over a period of time, we still have to "decide whether it is the most suitable in terms of a service management tools."

I have been using Jira Service Management Service for a couple of years. It falls under the Atlassian suite, so I have used the actual project management tool for over 10 years. Over a period of time, we've graduated within the entity to use other aspects of Jira Service Management, particularly within the context of its ITSM capabilities, which is IT Service Management, just for being explicit. But it provides us with a lot of aspects relating to incident management. From a chain management perspective, it's allowed us to get an insight into how to better plan and improve our decision-making process.

When it comes to the stability of this solution, I would rate it a six, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. 

I would rate the scalability of this solution a five, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. I think in terms of what it offers from a scalable point of view, it's not too cumbersome. There are times when it looks as if it's quite complex.

I would rate their technical support a six, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

I would rate the initial setup process a four, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. The reason for this mark is that it's a challenging process and it's very time-consuming and it requires dedicated resources for the setup.

We implemented this solution in-house.

The price is a point of contention for me. It does overall work out as a significant amount of money that will be spent over a shorter period of time. We are having to review what we are paying for the solution now, which means that we are probably putting out too much money for it.

At this point in time, we've accepted the hit and it's going to be a huge investment in terms of time and resources. We can't do anything about that now. We're going to have to make the best due of what we have for now. 

I believe, right now, we are averaging between 250 and 500 users a month, whereas we started off with something around $50 a month.

I would rate this solution's pricing model a seven, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. This rating was done through a comparison of other tools like ServiceNow. ServiceNow was more expensive which is why we moved away from that solution.

Overall, I would rate the JIRA Service Management solution a six, on a scale from one to 10, where one is the worst and 10 is the best.

Jira Service Management was a plugin and was not a completely different tool. Earlier, it was just a plugin for regulation. Later, they introduced it as a different tool. Earlier it was known as Jira Service Desk, and now they introduce it as Jira Service Management, a different tool.

If you have a product-based organization, then people used to use it for interacting with the client and getting the requests from the client. If it's internal, there could be a Help desk, IT service desk, or finance service desk, wherever you have to exchange the request between agents and the user base. You have to pay the license only for the agents, not all users. People can create their tickets free of cost. There, you get the portal, and any number of users can create their tickets, and only agents need a license to resolve their tickets and work on their tickets.

Earlier, people used to communicate using email. For a single complaint or for any single task, you are sending so much mail in a chain. If you have to search for any single item in that chain, you go into the first email to figure out where it started, how it started, what the resolution was, and what the discussion was. If you are using Jira Service Management, you can search for the tickets within seconds, and you get the whole history of that issue. It's much easier. There's more clarity.

The most valuable feature they offer is not to build in cost for every user. It's free of cost for your clients. It's free of cost for your internal users. Only, you have to pay the license for people who are going to work on it. If I take the example of an HR Help Desk, if it's an organization of 10,000 people, then 9950 people can log tickets free of cost, and only 50 people need a license to resolve their ticket, if it's a team of 50 people in HR.

The solution is stable.

It scales well. 

Feature-wise, they are improving day by day. I cannot ask for any single feature. We have to worry about how they are increasing their price. Atlassian will increase the price by 5% for most of the tools. It's getting expensive. 

The deployment can be a bit complex, especially for those who are not technical. 

I've been using the solution for seven years. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

You can scale the solution whether it is deployed to the cloud or the data center. 

While we might have up to 5,200 people using the solution, we do not require that many licenses, as only those dealing with the tickets are required to be licensed. 

We're using the product quite extensively.

Technical support has been helpful. I have found some bugs in the past, and they did a good job in helping us deal with them.

I am aware of ServiceNow as well. The UI is not as user-friendly, and it costs more. 

I cannot say it's too easy to set up. It is moderate for a technical user, and for a non-technical user, it will be a bit difficult. There are many things you have to configure. You have to configure the permissions and notifications for customers and agents differently. You have to set up the portal and many more things. 

The deployment will not take too long if it's on the cloud. The infrastructure is already ready for you. Since the server is closed, you only have the option of the data center if it's a data center. However, if you are going to deploy it in a data center, then obviously, it'll take more time.

You only need one person if you are deploying on a cloud and two or three people if you are deploying on a data center. If you are deploying on Linux, you may need someone well-versed in Linux. The cloud is an easy, fast deployment as you can do it in a few clicks. The data center takes more people and time. 

You cannot do it own. There are requirements the IT team is used to manage various items, including SSL licensing certificates. You have to get SSL certificates from them. The infrastructure is usually managed by IT, and you must host your instance there, so you need help from them. The implementation is usually a combination of two teams, both IT and non-IT.

We have witnessed an ROI. The solution has paid for itself.

You can choose either monthly or yearly licensing. The cost has recently increased. It might be around $20 to $25 per user license. 

You have three types of plans: standard, basic, and premium. If you need to configure it more, you have to use some plugins from the Atlassian Marketplace. For those, you have to pay whatever they may cost.

I'm a customer and end-user.

We use a few Jira tools across the organization. 

It is one of the best tools in the market right now. If you are looking for any service management tool, then you have to go for it. It's easy to maintain and easy to use. The user interface is very good. 

If you are in a client-based organization, your client will find it more useful as you can integrate with Confluence, and then you can deflect the users to the knowledge parts. You can create your own knowledge information on Confluence, and, without creating tickets, you can redirect your client or user to Confluence.

From there, they can get the information they need. It saves a lot of time for the IT team and empowers the users to do things by themselves. They do not have to follow up. They do not have to create a ticket.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

On a daily basis, we're working on migration activity. Apart from the migration activity, we're working with the modifications and workflows for particular people who need to approve activities - those who are doing user management and customization. We are doing some scripts on the create screen as well. Whenever there is an approval, it may require setting some features that hide things automatically or some features that need to be filled automatically. We have Lambda in the AWS. In Lambda functions, all the fields in JSON format need to be triggered in Jira. 

I like Scriprunner. Whatever is not possible, we can make it possible through Scriptrunner. We can customize the scripts, et cetera.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

While I really like Scriptrunner, there are behaviors we don't have in the cloud. In the cloud version, we need to do scripts and evaluators only. We don't have behaviors in the cloud. They need to do some updates in the cloud in future releases.

For example, we have ten custom fields in the data center create screen. If you select the first custom field, it will drop-down automatically the following nine custom fields that need to be changed. Any unwanted fields need to be hidden automatically. When we use the behavior, it is in the data center server version. However, working on the cloud version, we don't have that behavior feature in Scriptrunner. We must go with the validators if we need to write any scripts in the cloud. 

Basically, the cloud and the server aren't identical. They work in slightly different ways and the new cloud isn't the same as the server.

I'd like to update the dashboard so that more features are available. 

I've been using the solution for the last five years. 

The stability is okay. We do get bugs. However, we can figure it out. 

The solution is scalable. You can add users. 

We have a license for 10,000 users. However, only 8,000 people are using it. If users are not using it for 15 days, we'll remove them.

I work on technical support. We have low priority, medium priority, hybrid, and critical tickets. The simple tickets we'll assign to junior-level people if we have any. If the bandwidth is less, then we'll take the tickets. If bandwidth is more, then we'll assign the tickets to the lower-level people. However, in general, we deal with support queries. 

I have years of experience with Jira and have a good level of knowledge. 

Positive

We had ticketing systems from ServiceNow and YouTrack. Compared to Jira, the tools are not very good. For example, if you take the workflow only in the Jira, the workflow will be simple. However, with the other tools, workflows can be a bit complex. They need to write some Java code, for example. There is some complexity. They are also not that economical compared to Jira in terms of pricing. 

It is not complicated to set up. It's pretty straightforward. I can set everything up in about two hours. However, if any customization is needed in the database, it will take some time. It depends on the customization and the client as well. 

Some clients don't want any customized as well. They want only a simple setup. What we'll do is we'll install a server. We'll do the project's setup, explain everything, and show the server customer the base we have. Based on the blueprints, we'll create data servers, et cetera, and they'll use the simple workflow.

Going forward, they'll learn how to use Jira by doing. Once they know Jira, they'll ask for the customization part. 

We can handle the initial setup.

It is worth the money; however, if a company has budget complications, they should start with a standard version. 

The price of Jira is very good. 

We have a standard basic version. We also have premium plans we have in Jira. The cost depends on the plan. It also depends on the number of users and plugins. 

A basic plan will charge $10 per user. A more premium plan will charge $18 per user.

We are Atlassian partners.

We have a cloud version, and we have a data center as well. In the cloud, we are doing migration activities. In the coming next two years, when it comes to the server, there is no support and therefore, we're planning to completely move to migrate to the cloud.

If you are using this software for the first time, I would suggest the use of the cloud instead of a data center server. I prefer to use the cloud due to the fact that, in the coming two years, the server won't have that much support. Everyone is moving to the cloud and it's developing daily. The automation is inbuilt in the cloud compared to the server as well. Of course, for automation, you will have to pay.

We do find the cloud more secure and there are updates happening day by day. It's becoming more robust.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. If they improved their API integrations, I would rate it higher. 

JIRA Service Management was used strictly for our client's IT services in my company. Nowadays, the tool caters to business needs, HR, and administrative purposes, including the payroll aspect of my company's clients. The application has taken a different turn by allowing for managing certain relevant business needs as well.

In recent scenarios, JIRA Service Management has helped my company's clients on the automation front, including onboarding or offboarding employees. The product has multiple use cases with multiple departments, one area that gets highly utilized. The tool also helps convert an incident into a change or problem and then trace and track activities with the tool, which is highly leveraged. Integration of JSM with JIRA software on change and problem management to drive the release, and looking at the release on the DevOps chart, are some use cases by businesses.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its SLA, which everybody wants when it comes to a service-based offering. The queues in JIRA Service Management play a vital role in allowing its users to define the issue types, further classify them into queues, and then carry on.

In-built chat is missing in JIRA Service Management. To compensate for the missing in-built chat, we have been trying to gain leverage with Slack or Microsoft Teams at the moment since it is important to me who stands between the customer and the agent. The aforementioned area needs improvement because it is a very vital area. Suppose one can get on to something in JIRA Service Management that allows for communication. In that case, it is easier to solve a problem rather than communicate with JIRA through comments which will go back and forth.

In short, an in-built chat option will be good for the solution.

I have been using JIRA Service Management for over six years.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight to nine on a scale of one to ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight to nine on a scale of one to ten.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

I used to previously work with Bitbucket.

I rate the initial setup phase of JIRA Service Management a six out of ten.

The solution is deployed majorly on the cloud.

The time taken to deploy JIRA Service Management depends on multiple factors. It can range from a week to a month, depending upon what kind of customization and plug-in integrations are required.

JIRA Service Management's pricing is pretty decent compared to competitors. I rate the pricing an eight to nine on a scale of one to ten.

To those planning to use it, I would say that if they have a larger customer base, which may cause them to incur some licensing costs, then that is the area where they should look at JSM as a candidate. If some want to automate their internal processes, which could be operational, business-centric, or technical operation, they can use JSM. People who can look at JSM as a candidate are those who have a little bit of asset requirement where they want to manage the instance and opt for the trace and track functionality to find out what exactly is happening and who is honing what in general.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I use Jira Service Management for product development. Jira Service Desk is largely for handling customer queries and internal ticket management. It helps us with any IT-related requests and also allows customers to submit feedback for the product. So that's how we use Jira Service Management.

Jira Service Management provides workflow management, making it easy for us to track queries and provide solutions. It allows us to review historical data to see how our response time to queries has improved over time. This feedback loop helps us enhance our services and products based on customer input and Net Promoter Score (NPS) feedback.

Different projects benefit from various features. With Jira Service Desk, the simplicity of setting up a quick form and getting the service desk running quickly is very helpful. 

On the Jira Software side, I find the idea management feature valuable. It allows us to maintain a backlog of ideas submitted by customers, employees, and product engineering teams. We can track where ideas originate, follow their development into the product, and engage with customers throughout the process, providing a powerful capability.

One area I see for improvement is the custom options for marking an idea as obsolete. Currently, there are options like "not started" or "not working," but in today's rapidly changing tech world, some ideas can become obsolete quickly. For example, technology may become obsolete or a product may no longer be able to cater to a certain idea due to business pivots or changes in the product strategy. However, there is no specific option to indicate why an idea is considered obsolete, whether it's due to technological changes, business model shifts, or other reasons. Capturing these business-driven changes is not easy within the current setup.

It would be beneficial to have a configurable drop-down where we can filter and categorize the reasons for obsolescence, including technical, standard cases, and, importantly, business reasons. If such an option already exists, it might not have been effectively communicated to customers, as I haven't come across it yet within the customer community.

It's essential to have clear ways to manage and track the obsolescence of ideas based on both technical and business considerations.

I have been using Jira for more than six years. I currently use the latest version.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. Stability is pretty good; there's never a significant downtime. It's been great.

It is highly scalable. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have 500+ end users using this solution. Almost all of our employees use this solution. 

It's used every single day, heavily utilized for Jira Service Desk and Jira Software for product development. We use it to its maximum potential. 

While Jira has a decent community where you can find answers, technical support is fairly okay, mostly due to their strong community. 

Neutral

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a six out of ten, where one being difficult and ten being easy.

Initially, as a completely new user, the interface was not very user-friendly, with many cluttered options. However, once someone showed me how to use it, it became less challenging. But for new users starting with self-service abilities, it's not up to the mark.

The deployment didn't take too long, maybe two or three weeks. It is a self-maintained solution.

We have seen an ROI. The standard way of operating with Jira has optimized time efficiency, which translates to cost efficiency. It allows us to resolve issues more efficiently, although the interface complexity might slightly impact overall efficiency.

The price is not high. I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten,  where one is low price, and ten is high price. It's competitively priced, considering other similar products in the market. 

There are no additional costs. The license we have covered quite a few offerings, like Jira's Confluence page, so that's pretty good.

If you have a large organization with complex processes and need to scale up, Jira Service Management is an excellent platform for service and development management. However, if you're looking to optimize operations, improve services through data insights, and have a large organization, I would recommend considering ServiceNow as well.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. It's a solid solution with some room for improvement, but overall, it's a valuable product for our organization.

We use JIRA Service Management for any issue coming into the store and have four escalation levels. We're also using the solution for KPIs, both in the cloud and on-premise deployments, but in the server version, there are more add-ons, such as the SLA and dashboard features.

One of the main benefits of JIRA Service Management in my company is the SLA. I also saw improvements in problem management and request management. The solution also competes with ServiceNow ITSM, a good platform.

I find all features of JIRA Service Management valuable. It's a helpful solution, and it's necessary for my company.

The automation feature in JIRA Service Management is also beneficial, and that's yet to be available in ServiceNow. ServiceNow doesn't have the flexibility to automate processes.

I created one ticket in 2017 and followed up, but there's still no confirmation or resolution for it, and this is an area for improvement in JIRA Service Management. The ticket was about some enhancement to the customer portal that shows the assignee and SLA, but it's still not developed. The view of the customer is still limited. What would make JIRA Service Management better if the ticket had more details, such as resolution time, whether the ticket was breached, etc.

What I want to see in JIRA Service Management in the next release is related to add-on features, where if I need a new feature, JIRA requires me to pay for all users when only specific people use that add-on. If only a few users need the reporting feature in JIRA Service Management, I should not have to pay for everyone. I should only pay for the specific users who require reporting.

I've worked with JIRA Service Management since 2012, so that's ten years or more.

One to two times a year, my company faces some JIRA Service Management stability issues, though it isn't entirely because of the solution. The problems sometimes arise from storage or hosting, which means my company should upgrade the version, and that's it.

Scalability-wise, I'd rate JIRA Service Management eight out of ten. I see a lot of improvement on the cloud version that isn't available on the on-premise or server version, and I know that JIRA no longer sells the server license.

The technical support for JIRA Service Management is good and answers on time. The support team also gives sufficient information about the issues, so I'd give support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Anyone can set up JIRA Service Management. It's not complicated.

My company started with JIRA Cloud and then moved to JIRA Service Management. It took around six months to migrate from the old version to the new version because my company tried to use all features of JIRA Service Management first.

My company installed a new version or instance, then migrated the tickets from the old server to the new server. What took time wasn't the installation, but the process of rebuilding and enhancing workflows, configuring automation, and customization to meet different requirements.

I initially asked for help from one partner in deploying and configuring JIRA Service Management, and then my company managed everything afterward. One or two others did remote sessions to help with scripting during the deployment.

There's ROI from JIRA Service Management. The solution decreased the emails and calls we received about issues, so we require all users to log everything in JIRA Service Management. We use the platform in all departments, such as Finance, HR, and Procurement. We even use JIRA Service Management for any workflow, even those needing approval or escalation, because we get ROI from it.

The price for JIRA Service Management is reasonable and cheaper than other ITSM solutions, but the licensing model is different, so you cannot compare it with other solutions. Overall, the pricing for the solution is acceptable.

My company has JIRA Service Management both on the cloud and on-premises.

I'm using the latest version of JIRA Service Management in the cloud, but I can't recall if the server version is 7 or 8.

The solution doesn't require maintenance after deployment. Still, my company has a maintenance contract with the vendor if the need for script customization arises, but for maintaining workflows, that's managed by my company.

The company has around two thousand agents on JIRA Service Management, but the number of customers is three thousand to four thousand. The number of users increases daily, but my team only gives them the customer view, so my company's current usage is enough.

I'd recommend JIRA Service Management to others.

My rating for the solution is eight out of ten.

Currently, I'm not working with an organization that is using Jira, but my previous clients have used it. The last client had 15,000 licensed users, of which about 7,000 or 8,000 were active. I'm not sure how many of those were using it on a daily basis, but I'm guessing it was about a third.

Jira gets the basics right in terms of the Product Backlog and a Scrum Board that Scrum Teams can use to manage Sprint Backlogs.

The queries are weak and lack advanced functionality. You can do rudimentary queries, but you can't aggregate. You can't filter a lot of things that would be useful, so you need to use plugins to write writing advanced queries. I run into problems when working with different organizations because they always have restrictions on what kind of plugins they allow.

I have been using Jira for around 14 years, and Jira Service Management specifically for about half a year.

Jira is fairly stable.

The user interface becomes sluggish when there are many items in the database, especially large Product Backlogs. I've had page-load times of more than 30 seconds on modern clients. That's just unacceptable. A lot of things are processed through the user interface when it might be smarter to process them through the backend. It tends to be quite slow because it's a JavaScript user interface with a lot of dynamic processing, and a lot of it is run sequentially, single-threaded. For this reason, Jira especially benefits from modern browsers with a fast JavaScript engine, such as Chrome or Edge, and of CPUs specifically optimized for dynamic website processing, such as the Apple M series.

Atlassian support is excellent. I contacted support once directly because I was using a free license on a pet project, and I had to log in again, or they would deactivate my account. I logged in to prevent that from happening, but it still was deactivated, so I contacted them. They took care of it. 

Most of my work is with internal IT departments who administer Jira as an on-premise installation. They provide internal support to users, and my invoke Atlassian as a second level on their behalf. The on-premise installations often have lousy support. They tend to be over-bureaucratized IT departments that don't care much about user needs. It's just the kind of environment that brings that out.

I rate Jira 10 out of 10 for ease of setup. The setup is handled centrally by an administrator. I also use the Atlassian software as a service, so the setup is negligible. It's ready to go out of the box, unless by all means you want to host it yourself.

We never calculated the return on investment. Jira is useful when your teams are virtual and distributed across several sites or when there are many items, especially when they need to be tracked for compliance reasons. Software like this is always useful in those cases. It may be less valuable if everyone is in the same place and there are only few larger items to handle, in an environment that gives more leeway in terms of compliance.

The license is based on the number of users. Jira gets costly when scaling up to high numbers of users. At a certain point, it might be more cost-effective to create a custom solution or use something else. 

I rate Jira Service Management seven out of 10. The basics are good, but I'd like to see improvements in user-interface performance and scalability. Querying functionality is also limited. It would be nice if Jira allowed more advanced queries. The user interface doesn't lend itself to working concurrently, with multiple users having a conversation and using the system concurrently. Those are areas for improvement. I would rate it a 10 if it had those. But it does not.

Before deploying Jira, I recommend researching the product to see if it meets your needs. Jira fits a very wide range of needs. But there are a few situations where it is not optimal, or needs to be used in an augmented way. For example, it shouldn't be used to support Scrum events directly, because the user interface doesn't lend itself to working concurrently. You need to update frequently to see changes made by others, and actions are generally sequential. If I need a solution, e.g., for a Daily Scrum, I'd much rather use something like Mural or Miro, and then have it interface with Jira. While Jira can ultimately still be used in these scenarios, as the backend, it benefits from some kind of digital whiteboard on the UI end that allows people to work concurrently with it.

I mainly use JSM to pick solutions for customers, for email to case, and for self-service tickets.

JSM's best feature is the integration with other Jira products.

JSM's ability to handle large volumes of emails isn't great. Its SLA management is also very primitive and should be made more robust. In the next release, JSM should include the ability to send single emails to large enterprise organizations rather than each individual receiving a separate message. 

I've been using JIRA Service Management (JSM) for three years.

The cloud version is stable.

JSM's cloud version is scalable, but you need to be cautious with the on-prem version since you will be onboarding thousands of additional customers to support.

I previously used Salesforce Service Cloud and BCM software.

The initial setup is straightforward, but the software doesn't give any help, so you have to use third-party tools like script and SLA management tools.

JSM's pricing is one of the best, starting at around $10 per user, per month, with volume discounts available.

I advise anybody looking into JSM to ensure they get their workflows right and plan strategically about how they want to integrate their standard product with JSM. They should also stay away from the on-prem version. I would give JSM a rating of seven out of ten.

We are only using JIRA Service Management for a limited amount of use cases.

The most valuable feature of JIRA Service Management is a plugin we are using for the front end for simple user forms.

I have been using JIRA Service Management for approximately two years.

For the environment, we are using JIRA Service Management for it is stable.

JIRA Service Management is able to scale to a reasonable size. Since it is hosted in the cloud there are not any scalability issues.

We have approximately 500 to 1,000 users using this solution.

We are using the premier support from JIRA Service Management.

I rate the premier support from JIRA Service Management a five out of five.

I rate the standard support from JIRA Service Management a three out of five.

Neutral

The initial setup of JIRA Service Management can be complex for new users. There is a lot of configuration.

We have a two or three-member team that does the maintenance for JIRA Service Management.

The price of JIRA Service Management could be reduced.

We did not evaluate other solutions prior to using JIRA Service Management. The company preferred this solution.

I rate JIRA Service Management an eight out of ten.

We use it to track software development projects.

We get software developed faster.

I like that it's easy to set up Sprint and put tasks and stories into Sprint. It is really easy to lay out the work that needs to be done.

I think that either a Gantt chart or a calendar view is something my management is used to seeing, and while they like the Sprint burndown charts, they would still like to see what is on the plan, and what is up and coming. I would like to see improvement in the ability to filter completed tasks.

I have been using JIRA Service Management for three years.

The stability is ok for our needs. There are times when there have been some flaky things, that I don't think we expected, but it's not crashing all the time.

It seems to scale just fine.

I haven't figured out how to find Jira's technical support. There are times when I would have been happy to have had Jira technical support and I could not figure out how to get ahold of them.

There were some pieces that were more difficult than I expected. This is another place to think of some improvement. Not regarding the installation instructions, but more guidance on the different ways to set up your project and different ways this tool can be used. Again, if I'm paying for the licensing of the tools, going out, and sending lots of people to large training courses, this becomes more expensive. I'm looking for the developers to give more guidance on directions on relating to the tool and the ways that the tool is useful. 

I would rate JIRA Service Management an eight out of ten.