JIRA Service Management Reviews

I'm the vice president of digital strategy and executive delivery.

The solution is easy, even if you want to dock on something, it's easy to add the documentation and it easily integrates with other tools. I think that's the best part of it.

I think there are other IT ticketing tools that are better in terms of routing or work flows than Jira Service Desk. If you work at an enterprise size company, it might be preferable to use ServiceNow than Jira Service Desk which is better for smaller companies.

I'd like to see a well integrated solution. For example, if I wanted to do some testing, I don't want to have to buy another testing tool and integrate it with Jira. If Jira had a place for it to connect the requirements to the testing, that would be amazing.

I've used the solution for a long time but it was only implemented a few months ago at the company where I now work. 

The stability is good. 

The scalability of the solution is good. We have around 100 people using it, generally the business analysts or the program managers. Within that number, we have around 10 admins. 

I haven't really needed to use customer server, using the solution has been very easy so we haven't had much contact. They've been fine when we've used them. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We are using JIRA for accessing our help desk when other companies have problems with programs and to let them login when somebody needs to create a new ticket.  

I think that one of the most valuable features is when I am typing in my question for a ticket JIRA does a search for the answer at the same time. If it finds my answer, then I do not have to raise the ticket because I already found the answer in the knowledge base. This is good in saving time for customer service workers.  

For us, one of the weaknesses of Service Desk is that we can not check every issue in the queue raised for one product. If we have more than one customer using a product that has raised a ticket, we can not see the complete list of issues for the one product from all sources. It is not as easy or efficient to handle tickets without that capability.  

For this reason, we have an add-on administrative tool that we had to purchase separately for use with JIRA to help make the workflow more efficient. This could be added to the base product for all users.  

We have not been using the JIRA Service Desk for too long. We started doing our testing which lasted for just a few weeks and then we sent out a notification to our clients to use it. It has been in use at the company for maybe less than one month.  

We have not had the product in use long enough to scale the usage upward from the volume of our current client base. I do not think it would be a problem.  

I think the initial setup for the product is easy. It is not too complex or time-consuming to set up.  

We are very satisfied with the pricing of the product. Because we are an associate partner it is free for us.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate JIRA Service Deskaybe as maybe and eight or nine-out-of-ten. For our use case, and putting aside the need for the plugin, it is a nine.  

We implemented workflows for incident management, interaction management, and problem management.

The most valuable features are the management tools.

If we could have more Queue Management within Jira itself, instead of purchasing Jira Services as an add-on, it would be better. 

We purchased the add-on called Diviniti Queues that give us some priority settings for all of the queues of aggregation.

The single sign-on has some stability issues that need to be improved.

If we can have an easier way to deploy this solution without the help of a consultant and a more reliable way of deploying procedures, it would be quite helpful. It's difficult to deploy.

I would like to see improvements made to the interface to make it more user-friendly. There is too much information on the screen. Also, user experience management. What they have now is a screen full of data fields that are scattered everywhere. If we could reduce the amount of information we are giving to the users then it would be much easier.

I have been using Jira Service Desk for one year.

It is stable most of the time, but we are facing issues with the data center implementation.

The single sign-on does not work as expected. I have to sign in every couple of hours, re-sign, and I have to sign in even if I am signing into my domain or on my laptop.

Otherwise, the performance is good. There are no bugs. 

Some modifications had to be done to our data center servers.

It's a scalable solution. We have 380 users in our organization.

We are expanding, scaling up the users to other organizations, to companies that are out-sourcing to us. This is expected to happen at the end of this year.

I have not had any experience with technical support. We had reached out to our consultant who had helped us to resolve our issues.

We used to use HP Service Manager, and we conducted a comparison between both products. At the end of the comparison, we decided that we would prefer the Jira Service Desk.

It was complex for us because we had to migrate data from HPSM. 

We required a consultant to be involved, and even the consultant struggled for some time. It was not a straightforward job. 

The data migration from HPSM was not at all straightforward.

It took two months to deploy this solution.

We needed the help of a consultant.

We may upgrade the license that we have. The license that we currently have is good for 500 agents, and it's not full yet.

When we expand it will be necessary to upgrade the license. 

There are additional fees for add-ons.

Anyone who is considering Jira Software, I would recommend they go with Jira Service Desk.

I would rate Jira Service Desk an eight out of ten.

The primary use case is for support. I open, support, and service a request. There is also some follow up with the activities.

Some of the most valuable features are simplicity, ease of configuration, and ease of customization. Overall, it's very easy to work with.

At times you will need add-ons or additional software, so built-in features would be helpful. For example, a built-in SIEM.

It would be interesting to add an Atlassian SIEM. I think it would be great!

I have been working with JIRA Service Desk for one year.

This solution is stable and we have not experienced any bugs.

This solution is scalable. They have a good architecture with good settings, especially the data center architecture. You can download scalable architecture.

I have not used the technical support.

The initial setup was simple.

It takes a maximum of one month to deploy this solution for a medium-sized company.

At times, customers request regular assistance for maintenance as they do not have anyone internally. It's an on-demand implementation or improvement.

We implement this solution for our customers. Most of our customers are medium-sized companies, but we do have some that are larger.

It's not really expensive, especially when you compare to ServiceNow or other solutions, and it's not expensive to maintain.

There are additional costs for add-ons that require additional software to support the specific add-on.

There are not only custom licenses, they have licenses for add-ons as well.

Globally, it's an interesting cost perspective.

Because it is simple, you can start small and develop. You can customize more and more depending on your requirements. It's quite simple to configure.

I would say start and improve. Often you have to think about everything because it will be painful later on if you need to add customization that comes with JIRA Service Desk. This is the reason that you can start in one month. It's a simpler approach.

It's a good product.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We're a service provider. We implement the solution for our clients. 

Typically clients use Jira more around incident reporting management and resolution of queries, or SLA management. Then, sometimes, they need a range of compliance SLS's such as knowledge management.

It's easy to set up the solution.

JIRA Service Desk is really good when you have a primitive environment where most of the Atlassian applications are already present. However, if you are just using JIRA Service Desk for making leads for an IPS and solution, then it becomes really difficult to get all these IPS and capabilities up and running. This is due to the fact that in a native application, we don't get all these capabilities. 

JSD has some analytics, but it's pretty much basic and simple dashboards. There's no mobile application for JSD. It really would benefit from better implementation with other vendors. We're heavily reliant on some external marketplace applications.

We don't find there's support for CMDB.

The notifications are limited. That is good if a client environment is small enough and they do not require any advanced or mature use cases, but if they require it, then that's when we face a lot of issues because Jira Service Desk doesn't compliment such advanced decisions.

Jira should offer package solutions and be much more focused on giving advanced capabilities. If they are not developing advanced capabilities, at least, what they can do is focus on providing a packaged solution to give their customers the flexibility to choose what type of business package they want - whether its operations based or finance related. 

I've been using the latest version of the solution for the last couple of months. Before that, I used it last year as well. Overall, I've been using the solution close to a year now.

There are minor bugs and issues, however, I would describe the solution as quite stable.

With the number of applications on the marketplace continuing to grow, I would say the solution is quite scalable. The only challenges with scalability come with advanced use cases. There are some issues around their IPS and tools. Jira has the capabilities, however, they don't sell well for advanced cases. 

Still, if you are talking about the ability to scale using tools and plugins, I would say that usually, Jira can scale quite effectively for clients.

When deploying or implementing, or even sometimes in day to day maintenance, if we encounter some issues, we will connect with technical support initially. There were a few issues, for example, around a server's speed and Jira wasn't quite performing well. As time has passed, it's gotten better. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's fairly easy to get everything up and running.

In our experience, deployment takes about two to there months, depending on the complexity.

In terms of the process we follow, we usually come back to do some groundwork around what exactly the requirements are. We ask: what are we trying to solve? Then we do an assessment of the client environment. We try to identify which is the best fit in terms of applications for this deployment. Once decided, we run tests to see if the application fits the necessary criteria. We try to identify what the default configurations will be and make sure we clarify those before going ahead with our deployment strategy. 

The number of people involved in the deployment varies from client to client. If it's a small deployment, only five to ten people are needed. They may not be working all at the same time, but they'd have various roles in both deployment and maintenance. Afterwards, there will always be about three or four individuals that track support. These numbers can increase based on the number of tickets or the size of the organization. The highest amount of people we've worked with was about 30.

We implement the solution for our clients.

I'm not sure what the exact pricing is, but it's tiered based on the number of users. If a company has 10 users it might cost X but with 50 users it will cost Y. Outside solutions, such as plugins, may come at an extra cost. Apart from that, I don't think Jira has additional costs.

While we largely deal with cloud deployments, we did recently have a client that requested an on-premises deployment.

The types of clients we have are small or medium-sized enterprises typically.

On a cost-basis, the product offering is very good.

Jira is very customer-centric. They really try to help users make the most out of their solution as well as other products. The plugins are all designed to make Jira even easier to use, even more user friendly, and serve to bridge the gap of features Jira might lack.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. We hear a lot of feedback from clients, and they mention the solution has some limitations.

One of the primary things we use JIRA for is the Kanban Board feature. We use it for managing our projects and issues as well as accountabilities within the company. We have a homegrown — I suppose you could call it a Six Sigma type — approach. We identify the six main projects and the six areas where you can make the biggest difference within the company. Then we identify six projects that we're going to work on within those areas.

We use the Kanban Board extensively. We use the Confluence facility on the backend. Really,  we use Confluence and JIRA both together: Confluence for global planning and JIRA for issue and project management.

It simply helps us shape our project management workflow.

The implementation that we have is highly customized, so I can't talk to the capabilities of JIRA product independently because I'm not familiar with all of the different things that can be done with it. It's very useful in terms of the dashboard for the office, and the overview of all the different issues and props, what's on backlog, what's in progress, what's been resolved. That kind of thing, is very helpful.

One of the best additions to this product would be a single centralized point in which to store all the documents that are involved in progressing with tasks. For instance, if you're working on a JIRA task and you attach a document to it, not everybody will share a centralized storage facility where all the documents are. The idea would be to make it so everybody can see (or view) the same current document. They would get specific privileges (e.g., view or edit). But if a document is shared now, as it is in potentially an older version, it may not be accurate. Better to share the current document so that everyone has the same information.

Centralized document storage would allow all documents to be linked to any issue where it was pertinent rather than having to be attached to specific issues and limiting the viewers.

The product itself seems stable. We don't run into issues where we blame JIRA directly for failing.

JIRA can really scale perfectly for our needs. We have both end users and admins using this product. Really, everybody in our company uses it. No one has a problem with getting access and we scale as needed.

I haven't had any access to JIRA's technical support at all directly, I've never had any need to call them in. Generally, that would be someone else's responsibility. I'm not aware of having anyone in the company having issues with support on call or other contact.

We have looked for solutions in terms of the enterprise applications that are used by my company. We already have Confluence, we have JIRA Service desk, and we have Quest KACE Endpoint Management. We also use VMware AirWatch, virtualization productivity, and Dell hardware. A solution that works with these existing tools means that there is lest to change and train.

I wasn't involved in the setup of JIRA, so I can't really comment that much on that aspect of the product. It was set up by one of my other team members. However, I've been told it was a relatively straightforward process. The customization, which is substantial, has been difficult. That is obviously not the fault of the product itself.

We had specific goals in using a suite of products and we are doing our own deployments based on goals that we define. Essentially we didn't need outside help.

When considering a solution it is best to stay as standard as possible when adopting it. The further you get off the standard path the more difficult it is to adopt or adapt to other solutions if that becomes necessary or desirable in the future.

I can't actually give it a fair appreciation at this stage of the capabilities of JIRA as a stand-alone product because of the way we have implemented it in a cluster of other products. 

At this stage, I would give it a five out of ten. This is mostly because we rely on other products for certain services or features. If JIRA had more comprehensive coverage of what we require, or if it was easier to implement what it already does, the rating would be higher.

One of the main advantages of JIRA is that it can be customized for our solutions. I live in Iran and we translated some parts of it into Persian and customized it with extra features. We hid other features to customize it right to the point. We provide this solution for our customers.

It helps us shape it for our project management workflow. We are a software development team, a software company. Internally, we also use Microsoft Team Foundation, or TFS, for our development team, while we use JIRA Service Desk for our contact points. We use JIRA for the CRM and Microsoft Team Foundation for internal use.

We designed a single page on JIRA and classified it into three parts. One part reports software bugs, another part to report requirements about software development, and the last part for other requirements or needs. The customer can follow the links that we share. The system also sets permissions for our customers. I think we shared the agent mode. JIRA has two modes, one for administration and one for customers. We shared the customer mode.

Usually, our customers need two permissions, depending on their hierarchy. One level is the manager and the other is for a regular customer. We share it with our customer at two levels. The manager sees all of the requests that are sent from the organization. The regular user-level allows one to view only their own request.

It is simple to use. It is clear for our customer, who usually don't know English very well. The simple user interface helps them use the software.

An improvement they could add is a better management dashboard. We only use the dashboard for the administration mode. We have a dashboard that reports the state of bugs or requirements. However, customers can only view requests that they made. We are not able to share a dashboard with our manager level customers to show them all of the requests in a quick dashboard.

For Service Desk, I think the product now is very good and complete. Only the management dashboard for customers is a feature we would like to see in a future release. Maybe it is available already and we just can't find it.

JIRA has very good stability. We haven't had any problems with it.

We use JIRA in parallel with TFS. We connect them with a JIRA provided API. We use this API to connect with other products. Sometimes we must program for it to download some plugins and add to JIRA, for example. We can connect JIRA with other products this way.

One of our technicians did the setup. I am the manager of a technical support team and I delegated this part of the project to one of my technicians. I think he ran a Windows server for the deployment. He installed JIRA on it and configured it. He searched how to install JIRA on a Microsoft Windows server and read the manual. I think we had no problem with the deployment process. He set it up, but I didn't hear about any problem with it.

Actually in Iran we don't have copyright or intellectual property, so we can use JIRA for free.

It's uncomfortable, but because we don't have any laws about copyright, we must do it. We also do this with other products, like Microsoft's for example. We usually get them free. We have no problem using the full feature set free.

I searched about the top CRM in the world and compared features. Eventually, we selected JIRA.

I would rate this as nine out of ten. If they add a dashboard for management customers, it would be a ten.

I'm primarily trying to use the solution as an IT Service Management solution.

The customization is the most valuable aspect of the solution. I can customize full workflows. It's very flexible. We can use mail if we want to open requests as well. 

The solution offers access to add-ons that are also very helpful. 

The solution should be more formalized. It could be more user-friendly.

If we are talking about IT service management, I think more features related to problem management need to be within the solution. If you want something for supplier management or complication management, you have to buy some add-ons from the market to help you with this. However, there needs more enhancements regarding that both on the solution and with available add-ons. 

Arabic support is very important. It should be included on the solution itself, not provided separately. The reporting features should include more how-to guidance.

The solution is stable.

In terms of handling data, the solution is very scalable. Right now, we have about 50 users on the system.

Technical support is okay. They help us if we have something initialized. They're helpful and professional. 

We previously used FS from Nexus, a Mac-specific manager, and a CS manager, among others, for various types of service management. We were trying to replace the IT Service management solutions with Jira mainly as a non-technical box for a non-technical cost and push management.

The initial setup has a medium level of difficulty. Deployment took about ten days.

We did the implementation ourselves with the help of some tutorials, which really helped to build the system.

When we bought the solution, I recall there was one license option limited to 50 users. There is an enterprise version as well.

We are using the on-premises deployment model.

It's a good, stable solution. It can help open the IT Solution management backing if you're just looking to do some enhancements.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

The primary use case for this solution is project management.

The deployment model we used was cloud-based.

Depending on the project your deployment model would be using a hybrid cloud or a private cloud.

One of the things that I love about JIRA is that it connects the team together, and this is something that I will always need.

I believe that JIRA is one of the best project management tools. I like the history, the dimensioning, and how I can configure a space based on my preferences or the project circumstances. I can update the workflow on the project that I am working on.

One of the issues is that this solution keeps changing within a short period. 

During the updates, when another version gets released, whatever I am tracking at that time gets lost and I have to type it all over again.

Some enhancements can be done on the GANTT chart. It is not as user-friendly, and not easy to get established in JIRA.

I would like to see the documents open in the same browser, and not need to download it each time. It is not easy to be established, it requires a lot of work to keep it up.

In the next release, I would like to see more work in preferences. It would be great.

The solution is stable.

This solution is scalable. It's flexible.

We have not used the customer service/technical support. We use the technical team at our company.

The setup was a bit complex.

If it is on the cloud then it's easy to establish but if it's on-premises it is more complicated.

We had competitor options. It was between TSL and JIRA.

I wanted JIRA for the UI and its usability.

We are resellers for this solution.

I would recommend the JIRA Service desk, but there is always room for improvement.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The basic configuration and the basic abilities provided are the most valuable aspects of the solution.

Usability needs improvement. To configure it, you need to be well versed in JIRA administration. It's not very intuitive.

The stability of the solution is okay.

The potential to scale the solution depends on what the organization aims to do but it's good.

The solution offers lots of information on the website to assist with technical queries. There are also many community sites to help you troubleshoot any problems.

The usual setup is fine but to configure anything that is out of the box, you really need to understand the abilities of the solution.

Deployment takes about two hours.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd rate it higher, but it is expensive and very hard to customize.