JIRA Service Management Reviews

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 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.

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.

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.