We primarily use the solution for tickets and we use it for order processing.
We use the product for incident management, asset management, and service management. Those are the three big use cases. It's mostly asset management.
We primarily use the solution for tickets and we use it for order processing.
We use the product for incident management, asset management, and service management. Those are the three big use cases. It's mostly asset management.
We use a ton of the features.
The best feature for me, personally, is Discovery. That one is super useful for us. Discovery is super advantageous. That has brought us a long way forward. That is a big deal for us. It's gotten us away from the manual of walking the floor to trying to find the assets.
The other one that is really big for us is Automatic Workflows. That is a big deal and certainly helps with the streamlining of the process and the interconnectivity with incident management.
The solution is very stable.
The company went out of their way to help us and even helped us save about six months of deployment time.
If you stick to the out-of-the-box solution, it's an easy setup.
You can scale the solution quite well.
Technical support is very helpful and very responsive.
The licensing needs to be divided into tiers in order to attract lower-level users.
Right now, the licensing is kind of an all or nothing and so what happens is, is that either somebody has full access or they don't have any access due to the way the licensing works. There is this kind of view for ITIL purposes access that we kind of need, and we don't have access to it. If you think of RACI, it's informed access. You would need a full license to be able to do it. And we just don't. It really caused us a level of visibility loss.
Basically, what the licensing offers now is just for doers. There's no viewer role. It really needs a viewer role or an approver role level of licensing without a doer role license having to be issued.
If you move away from the out-of-the-box configurations, the initial implementation can get complex and take a while.
I've been using the solution for about two years at this point.
I love the stability. We were lucky enough to be physically located very close to Service Now. When we were hitting problems with our internal organization to roadblocks, we literally drove up to Service Now headquarters and sat down with them for an eight-hour session to revamp our whole internal process. I was pretty sure that if we would have continued down our own process, we would have taken another six months. However, with Service Now's assistance, we fixed it in one day just by having access directly to Service Now. That was an amazing process. They enabled us to jump forward six months and made things super stable.
We're a huge company. Scalability is definitely possible. We're scaling to over 100,000 users. We have asset management users, incident managements, software deployment, hardware deployments, break fixes, asset monitoring, et cetera, all on this solution.
We do plan to increase usage in the future.
If a company needs to scale, it can do so, no problem.
Technical support has been great. They are extremely helpful and responsive. We're quite satisfied with the level of service we receive as an organization.
We did previously use different solutions. Everything was fragmented. We were able to combine multiple systems. We tied multiple systems to combine them into one ServiceNow offering. We wanted to consolidate 50 or more systems into a single system and Service Now is one of the two options we looked at that was able to do that.
The deployment process is basically about requiring, gathering, and then developing or customizing the product itself for the workflows and then deploying it out into the field. It's really pretty simple, as long as you stick to a lot of the out-of-box functionality.
When you start to get away from the out-of-box functionality, you can really link in the deployment process. Anything that you go out past that out-of-box functionality, you can really hurt yourself. Basically, it has the capability of getting very complicated. However, if you stick to out-of-the-box, it's simple. We personally found that out the hard way.
For us, the deployment process took two years.
We recruited some outside help to assist us in the implementation. We found that having experts on hand was extremely beneficial.
I'd recommend outside help. There are definitely some nuances within the deployment that having some experts within Service Now is very helpful - especially when you're first time to have some outside thinking.
Our organization has noticed an ROI. They're happy with it.
The licensing needs to offer a variety of levels to meet what an organization actually needs. Right now, it's all or nothing, and that can get costly.
We also evaluated SAP against ServiceNow. We ended up choosing ServiceNow in the end, however, I can't recall what the deciding factor or factors were.
I'm a customer and end-user.
We are using the FAAS version of the solution currently.
I would advised those companies considering the solution to take advantage of what the programs do rather rather than try to lift and shift.
I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten overall.
We primarily use the solution for IT service management and then we're using it for custom applications. That includes digitizing workflows and helping our company with that.
The solution was bought for ITSM and we have also bought the Pro package, meaning that we have particular AI capabilities, among other features, that are quite useful.
The most valuable aspect of the solution is the possibility of the application development cap so that we can digitize workflows.
The solution scales well.
We've found the product to be quite stable so far.
When ServiceNow adds new features we have seen a tendency that they are very immature. They may release items too soon. In a company where you need to tweak and adjust, then I think there are so many improvements to be done.
If you have advanced questions, technical support often doesn't know the answer.
The stability has been good so far. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.
We have five engineers on the solution, and then 375 users and 200 App Engine users.
The solution is quite easy to scale. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so relatively easily.
I've been in touch with technical support both directly and indirectly.
Their level of support is about the same as Microsoft. If you ask advances questions, however, it's difficult for them to help. They need to be more knowledgeable about the product itself - especially in regards to advanced features.
I would say that we are not completely satisfied with their level of service.
I didn't handle the initial implementation and I wasn't part of the team that did. I can't speak to how easy or difficult it was to implement or what the deployment process looked like. I'm not sure how long it took.
The solution is on the cloud and therefore doesn't require any maintenance.
The solution is a bit expensive. We have bundled it into our three licenses. It's difficult to actually say if they are more expensive than, for example, PowerApps, since everything is bundled together.
I've looked at PowerApps. I'd say that ServiceNow has smaller features. The pricing is likely the same.
We are customers and end-users of the solution.
I'd recommend this solution to other organizations.
I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.
We mainly use it for requests and tracking incidents. We are onboarding our HR team, and they are going to start using the HR module in it as well. We also use it for asset management and configuration management.
We are using the Paris release.
I like the incident module, which is useful for tracking your incidents and other things. It is a reliable solution.
We are struggling with the scheduling part, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a ServiceNow issue. It could be the way we have configured it. We don't have it configured in a way where you can schedule a support call with our end users.
We are looking for more automation in the box and the chat feature.
We've been on ServiceNow for two years.
It is stable. There are no issues at all.
We have around 60,000 or 70,000 users or maybe more.
I haven't contacted them.
We used an IBM tool. We switched because we were told that we were switching.
I didn't set it up, but it is pretty simple.
It is a great tool. Most companies in my industry use ServiceNow.
I would rate ServiceNow an eight out of ten.
This solution is used for ticketing, reporting, and changes as well as for operations and incident handling. We always use one version prior to the latest one within the environment.
It provides us visibility into how we're responding to business needs. If somebody requests a new user account, a new computer, or something else, there are SLAs that have been agreed upon between different departments and business organizations. We can run weekly and monthly reports to get visibility into how we're responding to business needs.
It enables us to meet SLAs, track issues across the environment, and report those issues.
The level of complexity and the level of discovery are the two areas that can be improved. Its UI needs to evolve. They focus a lot on cool colors and other little things, which don't bring value in terms of functionality. They need to focus less on presentation and more on the functionality within the UI.
Its discovery mechanism should be improved. There is a component in ServiceNow that discovers the assets, but it doesn't do an immediate discovery, and there is a lag. If I want to open a ticket for a laptop or an asset, that asset needs to exist within ServiceNow for me to be able to say that I need to have its disk space or memory increased. It is referred to as a CI or configuration item in ServiceNow. Sometimes, ServiceNow doesn't discover these items, and as a result, I cannot open a ticket and tag that system or asset. If a system was introduced to the environment last week and it is still not listed, it becomes a problem. I will either have to wait or manually enter that system or asset. So, if I have a laptop with only 8 GB of memory and I want to request 16 GB of memory, I won't be able to do that in ServiceNow because my system or asset hasn't been discovered yet. Discovery is not immediate, and there is a lag.
I have been using this solution for around four years.
It is a stable solution.
We're a small company with less than 10,000 endpoints. I would be able to tell you about scalability only if we had more endpoints, such as over 100,000. Currently, its usage is 100% because everybody is using the tool. On a daily basis, we have less than three percent usage, which would be 300 use cases on daily basis.
They are awesome and great. I wrote the API bidirectional connector from Splunk to ServiceNow, and I've worked with them, and they are awesome.
I have been with this company for four years. When I came into the company, this solution was already in place.
I was not here when implementation was done, so I can't provide information about the challenges that had to be overcome when the solution was implemented, but I do know that it was implemented by a third party called Accudata. We did not implement it in-house. It was a managed service initially.
I would advise having a close relationship with the people who are implementing it and staying on top of it. You should meet every day to address any problems that are encountered.
I would rate ServiceNow an eight out of ten.
We use this solution for handling help desk tickets and tasks.
I like the workflow functions that are available in ServiceNow and the ability to actually integrate all of the information that you have such as travel tickets or assignment tickets for your team, onto your dashboard, depending on your setup, or if you create a ticket and a dashboard for your team.
When you update them in one place, it will show you updates in other places.
I like that functionality.
ServiceNow has more capability and the ability to integrate other solutions such as Excel or tables.
You can put information in or export it out quickly, which is very useful when you have weekly or monthly reports.
When it comes to changing some of the features, I would like a little more leeway.
This may not apply to every version but there are certain capabilities that you have to specifically order a la carte in order for the developers or your administrators to have access.
Having more integration without having to pay the a la carte, otherwise, you have to put in a ticket and have it approved, and if not you have to find a workaround for the solution.
I have been working with ServiceNow for five years.
We are using the most up-to-date version.
I definitely like the scalability, because if you have a small company or if you have a large enterprise, It allows you to tailor it.
The scalability of it is very good and putting it on the server, makes it very useful.
Their technical support was overall helpful.
A lot of it ended up actually being directed to the administration. ServiceNow developers and any support issues primarily go to them.
When I was researching to implement ServiceNow for another group, I contacted technical support and they were extremely helpful.
They set up meetings and were willing to talk through everything, to help us meet or help answer questions for our stakeholders.
It was very easy to set up. It was very easy to make sure things were activated.
Once you get the base up, it's easy to start to build out.
There are templates that are available, and you also have the ability to create your own.
It's very quick to implement.
The cost is the only area that I have never been privy to.
I know that the price is not too bad because people continue to use it and they are happy to renew their contract. But I've never been given the actual cost of it.
I would recommend that they have a meeting with their salesperson and go through the demo that they offer. I also recommend that they have their administrators or the people that are going to use it, sign up for the ServiceNow training that they offer.
Those are the two things that I definitely recommend before they use it. Other than that, it's really integrated.
I still have my ServiceNow login where I can go to a test site and test things out before we put them into real production.
I would rate ServiceNow an eight out of ten.
We use the solution for workflow automation and business processing.
It has been effectively used in our organization. We have large chats with 150,000 people and everyone has found it to be useful. Our internal IT team is supporting the tool and trying to get everyone on-board.
We have found the service easy to use, although, we have ended up customising a lot of parameters. It is a functional comprehensive featured solution compared to everything else on the market.
The customization that we are doing for the needs of our organization are difficult to do and could be improved. In the a future release, if they have not done so already, they should include cognitive capabilities features which we are currently lacking.
I have been using the solution for three years.
We have had no major issues with stability.
We have been in contact with customer service and we have no complaints.
The price of the solution is comparable to industry standards. For the features that we received, it is reasonable.
I have been reviewing a solution called BMC helix potentially coming on board soon. The cognitive capabilities that are being released in the market are pretty good.
I would recommend this solution. However, we did not have an easy time customizing the tool to do what we wanted it to. I would suggest if it meets 80% of your needs I would adopt the tool, but if not, I think building a custom tool itself would be the way to go at that point.
I did not give the solution a nine because that is too good. I do not think they are at that level. They are the industry leaders, for the automation of workflows. But there is definitely more that could be done.
I did not rate the solution a ten because nothing is perfect.
I rate ServiceNow an eight out of ten.
ServiceNow is helpdesk software that I have some experience with. This is not a solution that I deploy. Rather, I interact with it using hooks between it and NetBrain.
It is used for the creation and tracking of tickets and incidents, tasks, projects, and self-ordering. Our parent company uses ServiceNow for ordering and it has been utilized with a lot of different workflows. This is something that we never did but now that we've merged together, and we've merged our instances of ServiceNow, it means more of those self-service tech catalogs now in place and utilized.
As an end-user, I have not had any real problems with it. I use the capabilities that I have to and it's one of the tools that I have to use because that is where tickets are presented.
ServiceNow is a very powerful tool that can perform a lot of different functions.
There is inherent complexity with this tool because of the number of things that it can do.
My company has been working with ServiceNow for close to 10 years.
This is a stable solution. There's very little that I'm aware of in terms of hiccups and complaints.
As an end-user, I have not been in contact with technical support.
We did have an on-premises solution until about a year and a half to two years ago, and now we're using the SaaS version. That changes features and then tools, and perhaps other things as well.
ServiceNow is a very powerful tool and with power comes complexity. It's divided up well, and I have experience updating tickets in it. In my opinion, it can do a lot, although some people think that it should do a lot more.
I'm not convinced that it should be the source of truth for everything. Some people promote it as the source of truth, but in networking automation, there are multiple sources of truth. For example, Active Directory is your user source of truth. IPM is your IP source of truth. The ticketing system has access to a lot of things, but does it need to be, and should it be the source of truth for something? I don't think so.
I think that it should pull from other places and be a collection of sources of truth. It's not the source of truth for users, it uses users. It's not the source of truth for devices, as devices are managed elsewhere. However, some people try to force it to you be that source of truth. I think that following such advice can lead to trouble.
Again, it's a very complex system and you can make it do whatever you want. It's just a matter of getting it to react the way you want it to.
I would rate this solution a five out of ten.
Our primary use case of this product is for incident and change management. We are customers of ServiceNow and I work as a senior software development engineer.
The reporting details and easy access of the data has improved addressing the customers issues.
I think the incident management, change management and problem management features are the best. They are very good and I like all three of them. If most of our customers could learn the benefits of these three features, that would be great.
Another advantage of this solution is that we can get a detailed analysis on each incident; how long it took for resolution, how long it was on the client side, a detailed time base. Detailed reporting is another valuable feature and our customers comment on it too.
This is an expensive solution and I think that could be reduced. What I've noticed from talking to some of our clients is that most are not renewing their licenses because it's so expensive. Pricing is one of the main factors customers check when comparing tools and solutions on the market.
I think an additional feature that they could include would be a defect management system that ServiceNow doesn't currently have. It would be the best product in the market if they included that. It would make it a one-stop solution. They already have the incident management, problem and change management. Everything is there. So if they include this defect management, then it would definitely be the best in its category. I would recommend Servicenow should include the defect management feature like JIRA.
I've been using this solution for five years.
Servicenow is a stable product which is an advantage for the business. As per the current business trends and requirements the expected availability of the products are around 99.9% availability. hence, we cannot afford the frequent outages
Because it's a cloud-based technology, it's scalable and convenient.
Service now is a cloud based technology and its easy to increase or decrease the compute based on the load factors like no of users and based on the no of users increase, we can scale up the infrastructure of the servers. Apart from that any patch upgrades of OS or bug fixes can be done without any outage. Otherwise, in the legacy systems we need to take outages for any upgrades or patch deployments and which impacts the business.
We have a local vendor who assists us with technical support. They provide good assistance.
Earlier we were using the HP Service desk
The initial setup can be a little on the technical side so we are lucky we have the tech staff. Without that, we'd need to take a service provider or third party vendor to help with deployment which generally takes one to two weeks. It's important to have technical people involved in the implementation, otherwise it's quite difficult.
through vendor team
The pricing is little bit high. However, i would like to give some more recommendations like if servicenow can include other modules like Defect management and server monitoring and automatic inventory update then it can be a "Value for Money" and users will not feel overpriced for what other products are providing in the market with lesser price.
I believe the cost is around $1200 per user for year and which is quite expensive. If Servicenow comes up with the appropriate cost then definitely it will be the best product in the category of cost wise as well.
I was not part of the evaluation team.
I would recommend this solution, it's really an excellent tool in comparison to the current market tools like SCP and a lot of other tools out there. I can rank it as number one. The price is the only factor which is an issue. Because of Covid, companies are thinking about how to reduce licensing costs. I've made a comparison between ServiceNow and other tools, and I'm not satisfied with the others. But licensing costs are so high that we sometimes have to go for other products for our customers.
I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. If they would lover the price, I'd rate it a 10 out of 10.
