JIRA Service Management Reviews

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 using Jira Service Management for our internal platform. Most of our drive implementation and usage is around service management.

Internally, we are using the solution for tracking. We also use the solution for our external vendor tracking and support. For example, we have automation copies to track their requests.

Jira Service Management is flexible. It is easy to navigate without requiring extra learning. The user experience has been good.

JIRA Service could benefit from improvements to its voice support. We need to have quick customer care implementation for anyone trying to connect. The platform should connect to the solution.

I have been using Jira Service Management for six years.

Our data is not on a large scale. We have approximately 1,000 employees and we are not having any issues with stability.

JIRA Service Management is straightforward between the customer interface and ourselves. It is scalable with access to the cloud. 

JIRA has upgraded its support. They are now available on time whenever we need them.

Positive

The initial setup took some time because we were using other employee data for the automation platform. It took approximately 24 days to migrate the data to get started, however, this was not complex.

Initially, we used the product vendor to help with the migration and after migration, we relied on our in-house team. We have three mobile teams supporting the platform who can help with configuration and customization. Our developers maintain the solution.

We have an annual license with JIRA Service Management, but it is billed monthly.

We chose JIRA because we did not want a large platform with a lot of features. JIRA is a good platform that can be implemented quickly with a focused offering. 

I would rate JIRA Service Management an eight and a half out of 10 overall.

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.

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. 

I use the IT help desk Level One to manage tickets.

In Jira, when a client creates a ticket, I read the ticket, then I respond to the ticket. After the problem is solved, I assign the ticket to me. 

If the problem is not solved or harder than Level One, I escalate it to Level Two so that level two can handle the problem.

In my role, I get tickets from people, then try to solve them. If I solve it, I assign it to me. If not, I escalate it to someone with better knowledge than me. That's it, my role. I handle some phone calls as well.

The platform is easy to use. We can manage it very easily. 

You can understand easily. It is not complicated.

The initial setup is easy.

It's a reliable product.

I don't have much experience to give a solution for this. I'm not sure what could be improved.

The interface could always be updated and improved. 

I've only used the solution for one month.

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

I'm not sure if you can scale the solution. It's not an aspect I've studied. 

80% of our company uses it. However, it's not that big of an organization. In our department, there are five of us using the product.

Technical support is so-so. Some of them are good, some bad. It depends on the people. Some people are respectable, some don't really respect others. 

I've worked with Spiceworks in the past.

It's easy to implement. It's not complex or difficult. 

The time it takes to deploy varies. It depends on the complexity of the problem. Some problem takes five to ten minutes, and some problems take an hour. It depends on the problem.

We have admins that can maintain the solution. I tend to manage it myself. 

I'm not sure how much the solution costs. 

I'm a normal user.

I haven't focused a lot on updates. I'm not sure which version we're on. 

I'd recommend the solution. It's easy to use and the fastest way to handle a ticketing system. 

I'd rate the product eight 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.

My clients use Service Management for general ITSM ticketing. They typically use Jira internally for providing help desk services to other departments, but one of my customers uses it for his customers, like external websites, etc.

Service Management is great if you're an Atlassian shop already using JIRA for the development team and you want another tool for help desk ticketing. When it's all under the same umbrella, I can easily take a ticket from the help desk and move it to the development team. You can't beat that integration between two products. 

Service Management is highly customizable, but I think it might be too customizable. If a company isn't aware of the best practices, it can easily mess something up. For example, you might try automating something that Jira doesn't support, and it could interfere with the product's out-of-the-box capabilities. 

Asset management should be built into Service Management. Typically, companies need both. You have to buy Atlassian's asset management solution separately. It could either be offered as a bundle or some lighter version of asset management could be included with Service Management. 

I have been using Jira Service Management for a year or so.

I have confidence in Service Management. 

Service Management is scalable. 

I rate Atlassian support two out of 10. It takes a lot of time to reach them and get ahold of someone who understands my problem enough to provide a solution. Also, I live in Israel, so my work week is Sunday through Thursday, but I can only contact them from Monday to Wednesday.

Negative

I've worked with ServiceNow. Comparatively, Jira provides a good solution at a reasonable price, and it's quicker to implement inside a company. ServiceNow's implementation is complex. I'm more comfortable with Jira. 

I rate Service Management six out of 10 for ease of setup. At first, setting up Service Management seems incredibly easy. You log into the website and access the site, but nothing comes from the backend because you don't have anything set up for the company. You need to set up the fields, workflows, etc. Companies expect to be able to do it fast after buying the license, but it's not that quick. It typically takes five days to set it up. It isn't a plug-and-play solution.

I rate Service Management four out of 10 for affordability. The price could be better, especially for companies using more than one Atlassian product. It's suitable for SMBs that can afford it. I don't think there's another tool that's both better and cheaper. All help desk tools are relatively expensive.

You also need to consider the overall work we need to do on the tool. The five days of work needed for deployment isn't much, but it requires ongoing maintenance over time.

I rate Jira Service Management seven out of 10. If you plan to implement Service Management, you need to be aware that you can do whatever you want with it, but you might not know the long-term effects. If you do too much automation, it could have unforeseen consequences in the long run. You need to be highly specific about your needs from the start, so you can correctly build the tool's architecture.

We use this solution for ITSM solutions including for our help and service desk for user support ticketing and incidents. There are several use cases for this solution and its usage depends on the kind of the company.

The customer portal with connection with our knowledge base has been most valuable. The queues to classify requests and SLIs to measure the quality of the service response and resolution time have also been great. It offers flexibility to configure workflows.

The product could improve its asset management.

I have been using this solution for seven years. 

It is a stable solution. You can deploy it with high availability in a cluster.

This is a scalable solution. You can add clusters or servers if you need on-premise solution or for a cloud solution.

I would rate the technical support for this solution a four out of five. 

The installation is simple but you need to set up a PDF to initiate the configuration and adapt to the customer or user needs. It's very flexible, but you need to complete the configuration work.

The cloud version or AS version takes minutes or hours to deploy. For on-premise version, you need between five to 20 days. It depends on the initial needs of the customer. Compared with other solutions like ServiceNow or EasyVista, this is a solution that can be deployed in less time.

It depends on the number of users but it starts at $20 per month per user. I would rate them a three out of five for pricing. Asset management has an extra cost. The relation between price, functionality and usability is good.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.