JIRA Service Management Reviews

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. 

We use this solution for support for our projects.

I think one of the most valuable things is that it's all integrated. Between the Wiki and the product itself, whenever someone is typing in an error, it automatically pops up a solution.

Whenever we want to fix or improve something, Atlassian send us to the marketplace. We can vote for improvement, but it is really hard to get Atlassian to move forward with production because they have a huge marketplace. There are a lot of companies developing fixes or features, and you can pay for those features. I feel that Atlassian isn't really interested in fixing everything because if they did, the partners that are developing the fixes and features would not have a place in the market. 

An additional feature I would like to see is automation. JIRA offers the functionality of global automation in their highest plan, but it's at a higher price. Sometimes they release good new features, but they're always at a higher price so most of the features are only available for the highest plan. I would like to see new releases also being available to the lowest plan.

I have been working with this solution for four years. 

The solution is quite stable and we've had no problems with it. I would rate the stability as an eight out of ten. 

It is easy to scale, especially because we are working on SaaS, so it's not a problem for us. We have been putting a lot of new projects on JIRA Service Management and we've never had any issues. Approximately 200 employees use this solution at my company. 

I have opened tickets with the support team. Sometimes the answer is good, and sometimes you're commonplace behind a priority search, so it all depends on the technical representative that picks up the ticket. I would rate the technical support as a three out of five. 

Neutral

The initial setup was quite easy. 

On a scale of one to five, with one being really high and five being good, I would rate the price of this solution as a four. 

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. It's a good product. 

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.

Our primary use case for this solution is project management. We use it to record some of our tasks and follow up with our developers to ensure they complete assigned tasks. It is cool and user-friendly. It is easy to navigate and understands most of its functionalities. Additionally, we use it to review developers' tasks and tasks assigned to the QA team from JIRA Service Management to run checks. When we're done with the checks, we do our reports on it, and the project manager can view what has been done. It is a very cool tool, but I didn't work with it for long before I moved to Microsoft Azure Dev Tools.

I can't specify which of the functions are my favourite, because I think everything about it is great. The only challenge is that it is difficult to navigate if you don't have any prior knowledge of the software. However, if you have knowledge, you can navigate around it and know what each tool within the software is used for. I preferred JIRA Service Management before we adopted Azure because I had already started getting familiar with it.

I think it's well organized. If the project manager knows how to set it up, it can be set it up in a way to suit what we want. The only issues we observed are network related, for example, when we try to log into the system or open up the software. Other than that, I don't think there is any other thing I can say that is wrong with the software. The developers did a very good job of knowing what the users wanted. The product is not lacking anything that a QA will want to use because it's not a major testing tool for QA. However, if they can develop their own JIRA development tool, that will be cool, similar to how we have Chrome development tool and Azure. I think it will be good if that can be incorporated into JIRA Service Management.

We have been using this solution for about five months. First, we used the latest cloud-based version where we navigate to the website and key in our community, company name, projects and group. We can then go directly to our workspace, where we see everything we do.

Most software work with the internet. Some of them, especially those that are cloud-based, are also linked with work servers, but there is no guarantee that they are 100% stable. If the network is not stable, then it affects the software. For example, if you open the web browser and type the URL and get a server error, it's usually a network issue. If the network is stable, the platform will work fine, but if it's not stable, you're going to expect some hiccups in the work site.

The scalability depends on the organizations using JIRA Service Management. If it's fitting for what they are using it for, then it's okay. If it's not, they have every right to change it and use something else. We decided to move away from JIRA Service Management to Azure because we felt it wasn't properly organized. I found working with JIRA Service Management interesting because I could look at the extractor and see which task is in development, or emerging, the status of every task and to who it was assigned.

Our company has currently switched from using JIRA Service Management to Azure.

I don't have any details of the initial setup process. 

I don't know anything about the licensing costs. I wasn't with the company when it was installed, and I only used it as a tool for my work. Hence, I cannot comment on pricing.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten, as it does not lack anything. My advice to users is that JIRA Service Management is a good project management tool to handle projects respectively and efficiently. The product is second to none if they know how to use it. Additionally, JIRA Service Management has a learning section where you can go and learn how to use the software. New users to the platform can also capitalize on a cursor feature that describes how to use a particular tool once you hover over it. For those who developed the software, I want to give them a thumbs up as they did a very good job. If there is anything they feel they can add to make it more user-friendly, they should ensure that the users can have access to whatever they want to upgrade on the software and let it be that the users can use that tool effectively. However, the tool could be improved by including more explanations to assist users who are new to the platform. I would describe JIRA Service Management as being 75% user-friendly, but it would be great if it could be 90% user-friendly.

We are using JIRA Service Management for change of management.

JIRA Service Management is a very user-friendly solution.

JIRA Service Management could include more AI features.

I have been using JIRA Service Management for one year.

JIRA Service Management is a very stable solution.

I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten for stability.

Around 50 users are using JIRA Service Management in our organization on a daily basis.

I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten for scalability.

I would recommend JIRA Service Management to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.

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.

We are a services-based organization providing software services to our customers.

This product is great at providing end-to-end project management for creating dashboards, for test case management, bug defect management, and the like. The management aspect is a key valuable feature. 

I think test case management could be more efficient. It currently requires two plugins which makes it less effective. At the moment with Jira, there are various products not included in the license such as CI CD pipeline or Atlassian Bamboo. Even if you take a bundle, these products are considered separate. On the other hand, if you buy an enterprise version of Microsoft Azure DevOps, a competitor of Jira, it's a one-stop solution on a single platform. 

I've been using this solution for over 10 years.

The solution is stable. 

The scalability is good. 

We don't use the technical support very much. Jira provides good documentation. 

Jira's advantage is in the straightforward set up. It's very easy in comparison to other tools. Deployment generally takes two to three weeks before we can go live. We use a third party for our deployments. The infrastructure environments vary from client to client. The deployment requires testers, developers, a technical architect, as well as project and service managers. 

The cost of the product is not very expensive but if you need to buy other plugins such as Confluence, it costs extra. I would recommend choosing a bundle option, if Atlassian gives you that option with Jira Confluence.

We also deploy Microsoft Azure DevOps. The client generally decides which solution they want to go with. The added advantage with Microsoft is that it's a one-stop solution whereas Jira's benefit is that it offers a less expensive product. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

Here in Korea, there's high demand for eCommerce solutions or platforms. You'll see fifty percent of products on eCommerce platforms or follow an eCommerce model. Some companies even own eCommerce platforms. For example, a clothing company wants to sell products online and uses online services. Usually, companies want to build platforms, so my company goes ahead and helps build the platforms, and Jira Service Management helps in the process.

Another use case relates to training solutions, especially with the COVID-19 pandemic. A company wants a training platform for its employees. For example, a rental company with thirty thousand service staff or installers must train employees frequently or regularly, so my company does the application development for online training solutions.

My company also uses Jira Service Management in platform-enhancing projects. For example, a company wants to enhance CRM or ERP, manage or improve hiring, do cost management, etc.

Jira Service Management is a generic solution that helps in project management and application development projects.

Jira Service Management has three features I found valuable. First, it has a workflow feature that you can configure for your specific requirements. For example, you can configure your workflows for service management, especially if you want to utilize it for a service desk. This is beneficial if your company provides services to customers where customers or users have questions, complaints, or troubleshooting requests. Through Jira Service Management, you can receive service requests and handle the requests within your organization or company as long as you configure and apply service management processes through the solution. This would still depend on your company's process. It's different from one company to another.

Another feature of Jira Service Management I like is that it lets you efficiently manage service requests with team members or employees. Team members can access and handle designated service requests, add answers, check the history, etc.

Jira Service Management also has a dashboard that helps you handle service requests well. Dashboards provide monitoring information, such as the number of service requests, which customers need information on, who's handling the service request, what's the status, and the priority levels of the requests. You can get service request statistics on the dashboard.

I also like that Jira Service Management has several feature sets you can configure. You can add columns and configure screens containing the information you want, such as customer name, environment, etc. The solution is flexible, which I also find valuable.

What's missing in Jira Service Management is the user screen. You'll find it very weird if you've never used the solution before. You won't instantly understand how to use it. It's not too difficult to grasp, but first-time users would think that Jira Service Management is a weird solution. The user-friendliness of its interface needs improvement.

There's a pro and a con to adding user screens because some people might lose product visibility if a user screen is added, but I want Jira to develop a way to add user screens to Jira Service Management.

I started using Jira Service Management in 2014. I've been using it for eight years now.

Stability-wise, Jira Service Management is a nine out of ten because it's been stable for eight years.

Jira Service Management is very scalable, so I'd rate its scalability as nine out of ten.

My rating for Jira Service Management technical support is eight out of ten.

Positive

I find the initial setup for Jira Service Management very convenient. Ten minutes is enough for me to set it up. In terms of users becoming familiar with the solution, it would take one week. The total time to deploy Jira Service Management is one to two weeks; setup-wise, it's eight out of ten.

How you set up and deploy Jira Service Management depends on your needs. Sometimes you need to set the solution up with a CI/CD pipeline to streamline it. You must gather your requirements and look into your project scope, particularly application feature sets and development list. Once you have the requirements, you can drill down into the development list, break down the sub-functional list, and then identify the software design.

From the software design perspective, you need to break it down into functionalities, and once you have your functionality list, you can assign that to developers and designers. The designers and developers can work via scrum or sprint. My company practices both. People will then develop the software based on the application functionality list and perform some tests.

The QA department will then do an API test and test the user interface and feature sets. Staging, verifying, and validating requirements will also occur before the software is deployed into a production environment.

As Jira Service Management lets you enjoy efficiency and more visibility compared to other solutions, you can consequently save money, so there's ROI from the solution. Still, at first, there were some deductions.

ROI-wise, it's a seven out of ten.

Jira Service Management has affordable license fees. It's $12 a month per person. If you need support, you need to email Atlassian. Atlassian doesn't provide premium-level support that requires additional payment. My company doesn't need it anyway.

I'm a heavy Jira and Confluence user and have a lot of information on system integration projects. My company used ALM solutions ten years back, but not now. I'm looking for other solutions that provide quick delivery for digital transformation projects, as that's what companies search for nowadays.

Confluence, like Jira Service Management, is from Atlassian. Atlassian provides several solutions, such as service management and application lifecycle management (ALM) solutions.

I use several solutions, such as Jira Service Management, Jira Work Management, Confluence, Bitbucket, and Trello.

My company uses Jira Service Management heavily for sixty projects.

My company is a service integration company, so for some customers, Jira Service Management is deployed on the cloud, while for some, it's deployed on-premises. My company builds CI/CD pipelines for customers with data centers. My company utilizes Jira Service Management heavily in both AWS and Azure. The solution is deployed on Azure or AWS, depending on the customer's requirement.

Three people train users on the software. It's not difficult to set up Jira Service Management. The difficulty occurs when users have no familiarity with managing the solution. A small software development team sometimes doesn't want to use Jira Service Management.

When the solution is up, it doesn't require maintenance. If it's just a feature upgrade, it doesn't need maintenance. However, sometimes, my company needs maintenance and support because the project is continuously evolving, so there's a need to make some changes. For example, you need to change your workflow or the dashboard. Atlassian maintains the software. It's Atlassian's responsibility. My company has three engineers for ALM maintenance, rather than Jira Service Management maintenance. The three engineers support customers.

My rating for Jira Service Management is nine out of ten.

My company is a Jira customer.

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.