JIRA Service Management Reviews

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. 

We needed a centralized, user-friendly, and admin-friendly system for our help desk. We had multiple systems and teams that needed to be deployed for this system. For example, we had a development system, a first-line help desk team that was available 24/7, and an escalation process. The first line, second line, and third line might be a local partner or so. We even automated the process for the external partner of our company. So when our first line escalated to the second line of support and the second line couldn't resolve the issue according to the process, it went to the partner. And the partner saw all the history on the tickets. It was a really nice solution.

It has improved our work in a number of ways. First, it has made everything much faster. Before Jira Service Management, it could take weeks to resolve a ticket. But with the notifications and reminders that Jira Service Management provides, we have reduced the time spent on tickets from a couple of weeks to just two to three days.

It has definitely saved us time for really usual stuff, for example, a laptop that doesn't work properly and you require the first-line service desk to address the problem. Previously, it could take up to a week to get it resolved because we didn't have a centralized, automated system for control, monitoring, and reminders, particularly for the first-line managers. Also, there was no escalation process in place. We were using a basic, free, open system without any escalation features, and we received notifications through email, but those were only generated upon ticket creation.

There is room for improvement in support. We had one or two cases of not really nice responses from the partner.

So, there is room for improvement in terms of response time.

In the end of 2021, I implemented a Jira help desk solution in an aviation company.

I worked with a user and a project manager who implemented this solution for about a year. We had a project, then about a year of usage only as a user.

I used it last seven months ago because then I switched jobs. And before that, if we are talking about Jira Service Management, it was implemented at the end of 2021. So it was, like, four months of projects. 

It was really easy to set up, and it was really clear for the help desk managers and for the end-users to set the workflow and the business process of the tickets for the help desk. Like, from the box, we used the box solution. It was perfect. I used it six months ago.

It is a stable solution. It is an online solution so it is easy to maintain. 

In terms of scalability, Jira covered all our demands. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. 

We didn't use all the possible settings for the solution, but it still scaled well to our 1200 users. We didn't have any stability problems with Jira, so it gets a ten out of ten from me.

We had some problems with our partner's tech support.

Neutral

I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one being difficult and ten being easy to set up. It took a bit longer than we planned because of the partner.

I had a project manager, a business analyst, and four other people on my team for deploying and maintaining the solution. We also had the head of support and the first-line support manager who tested everything for us.

Overall, the project took about four months, but that included deploying all the processes, levels of escalation, and other things. So it was super easy.

It wasn't the cheapest solution out there. It could have been a bit cheaper, but the user experience and overall capabilities of Jira make it worth the price.

We have another team working on those tools, for example, Trellix and Symantec Data Loss Prevention. We have a range of information solutions used in an ongoing project, and it's only in the planning and feasibility stage for DLP. So, I have worked with a bunch of them.

I would definitely recommend Jira. It's a great solution, but like any other IT tool, it's important to have well-defined processes in place before you implement it. If your processes are not well-defined, Jira won't be able to help you as much.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. It was a great experience for both our first-line help desk managers and our end users. The interface is super easy to use, and the analytics features are really helpful. We were also able to deploy Symantec Data Protection 2 in Jira, which was a great addition.

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.

Feature tracking is a useful feature of JIRA Service Management. If there are multiple people in a team in an agile environment, it's very difficult to track whether something has gone to production or a feature has been worked on.

We use JIRA Service Management for tracking purposes, planning, and execution.

Field addition and removal features are not very intuitive in JIRA Service Management.

I have been using JIRA Service Management for six to seven years.

We are satisfied with the solution’s stability.

I rate JIRA Service Management a nine or ten out of ten for stability.

Around 15,000 to 20,000 users use the solution in our organization.

I rate JIRA Service Management a nine out of ten for scalability.

The solution's initial setup is easy.

I rate JIRA Service Management a nine out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

JIRA Service Management has helped our organization save time.

JIRA Service Management is deployed on-cloud in our organization.

Overall, I rate JIRA Service Management 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 to track support incidents, which take a different route than incidents that occur within the project. The workflow has been configured so that tickets raised in Service Management are prioritized based on severity and the SLAs. After that, it gets assigned to the owners. We use it mainly for production issues.

We have around 40 users. Some are business IT, but members of the operations and BAU teams also use it. A few of the higher-level management use it, too. 

Jira lets us customize the workflow to meet our requirements. The email and alert features are also handy.

We have tried exporting some of the test cases into Jira from Excel. The interface for that isn't very user-friendly. 

We're a new company, so we have been using Jira for three-and-a-half years.

Jira is highly stable.

We have a relatively small organization, so Jira scales up enough for our purposes.

I rate Atlassian support eight out of 10. If we get stuck, we can usually find solutions from the Jira user community. 

Positive

I wasn't involved in purchasing Jira, but I believe it is affordable for small organizations.

I rate Jira Service Management eight out of 10. It's easy for new users to learn. A lot of the staff members are new to Jira, but it's simple to pick up and learn how all the processes work.

Jira has many features, and I haven't had the opportunity to work with some of them. There are workarounds to accomplish most things you want to do with the product.

One of the valuable features is that an automatic response or action can be taken on tickets. We can have certain responses for tickets that contain keywords or are logged and tagged with certain labels.

The other thing is that the solution is starting to get out of just Service Management, and it's providing a Service Management project for other parts of our business. You've got the IT part and you've also got the business support, so people can use it for services like purchase orders, applications for shipping, and other things that are used across the business. That's the other useful part, that you're able to adapt it for other things.

Because it's a cloud platform, and because it's based on people subscribing to a platform, you end up with iterative improvements. I know a lot of users have said that they want a feature, for example, that was on the on-prem version of Jira or that the cloud version is missing, and the biggest issue, and this applies to a lot of cloud or SaaS platforms, is that the vendor can't deliver or do that. They're either unwilling or unable to give feature parity. The nature of a lot of SaaS solutions is that you can't always get the same thing.

The other thing is that you may have a time lag where, suddenly, you don't have a feature anymore, and you have to log an improvement request and then wait for various other factors. Eventually, it might get progressed or it might get stopped. Probably the biggest downside is that you are locked into that model and you have to accept what you signed up for. You have some capacity to extend it with add-ins and things, but for the base feature set, you will always be at the mercy of the vendor.

A lot of the integrations within the marketplace for Jira are all third parties, so a lot of the additional solutions that plug into other platforms are not written by Atlassian and that usually incurs an additional cost. It may not be the model they want and it would stifle competition and external people being able to contribute, but it would be good to see Atlassian provide more native integrations out of the box. I'm not against paying for integration if it's going to provide benefits, but it would be nice if Atlassian themselves were able to provide some things, at least at a basic level. I know third-party vendors can commit resources and probably have far more capability to deliver something that is feature-rich, but if you just want basic integration it would be nice to have it, rather than having to buy something when you may not need all of its functions.

I have been using the solution for probably between four to five years. Previously we used an on-premise installation of Jira, and then we moved to the hosted or Atlassian offering, where they host it in their own cloud. 

From where I sit, the cloud version is superior. Mainly this is due to not having to manage the upkeep of Jira, which was quite frankly a pain, but that's just the nature of Jira.

The solution is relatively stable. There was an incident not long ago where Jira was in the news because there was a small error made by somebody, and they ended up deleting a lot of customer environments and they didn't have any backups. I think that was a wake-up call for a lot of people. Otherwise, stability-wise, it's pretty good. They've got APIs and things for various other actions and we consume that and it seems to be pretty issue-free.

We have increased our license count and our consumption of services, not just with Service Management, but our entire Jira service consumption. We upgraded our subscription at least a couple of times over the last year and it's pretty simple, you literally say what you want to do. The other great thing is that you can trial it. You can say, "I want to initiate a trial of this particular level or subscription," and then you can trial it, piece it all out, and decide whether you're going to increase.

In terms of actual support staff, we have probably between 50 to 75 employees using this solution. The whole business includes between 600 to 650 people who could be using it to log requests.

I think the complexity of the setup depends on what you take with you. We migrated our existing Service Management project to this cloud version. If I was doing it, I wouldn't bother doing that. I would archive that data and start fresh, but it does have a lot of built-in onboarding features that were quite useful. We also have a partner who's a Jira-certified implementer, so they were very helpful with a lot of the issues that we had.

One other thing was getting the SCIM, or the provisioning of users, fixed. We use Azure ID, so it was important that that was done correctly, otherwise licensing would be a nightmare. We wanted to make sure that we weren't licensing people who were no longer active, and also that everyone who needed access, got it.

We didn't require an integrator, but we already had somebody who we were working with, not specifically for Service Management, but for a number of Jira initiatives. They were able to give us pointers. You don't have to have an integrator, but it was useful.

On a scale of one to five, where five is a good price and one is high, I would rate this solution as a three. It isn't cheap but it's not ridiculous.

I would rate this solution as a six out of ten.