The patching for non-Windows OSes such as Linux is poor, and that gap needs to be stitched.

From an improvement perspective, the solution's UI should be more similar to ServiceNow to make it easier for a new user to learn and understand the product.

In our company, we come across a hundred incidents in a six-month time frame, so it would be great if a filter is created to help us pull the reports.

Ivanti Neurons for ITSM's support model is not very strong. You should buy professional services. Its self-service portal and survey are extremely lacking. You cannot customize it, and it doesn't look very good.  The solution does not have a strong community. 

For the most part, I find it to be quite satisfactory. I haven't encountered any significant issues or areas that require improvement. It's currently user-friendly and offers a drag-and-drop, no-code interface, making it accessible and efficient to work with. As I mentioned earlier, having exposure to ITIL processes is essential for understanding ITSM functionality. Thus far, I haven't faced any notable challenges.

Perhaps one area that could see enhancement is the language and localization part as local languages are not all included. 

Other than that, the solution is very powerful. Imagine configuring a workflow that allows you to request the installation of a virtual machine on a server. The system itself could automate this process, it is a highly impressive feature. While it might be advanced and potentially challenging, I believe it could be achievable.

The user interface must be made simpler and more effective. The tool must provide more integrations with ERP tools. The ServiceNow integration could be made simpler.

For our region, there is room for improvement in price. So, maybe if Ivanti can bundle all the features together. Like, have one console instead of separate ones for different features. The customer just enables the features they need with the license and continues.

Moreover, most of the features don't work in a hybrid environment. There are some servers that need internet access for features to work.

My role is self-service. Sometimes I can't get the reports that I want until I go to the manager. His role allows for more reporting options, whereas mine is rather limited. Sometimes I feel even they need to put more into the new report. The standard reports are great, but they do not communicate as much.

Another thing is to have more ownership, in terms of centralizing my support internally within my team. This solution is also used by our other departments, so it is set up in a way that even other IT officers can access. However, we don't do the same thing with it. We give support to the department. I give support to my sites, which are outside my vicinity.

Things are mostly set by the consultants themselves, but as an institution, we might have our own thresholds, in terms of how we scale up, score, or rate the level of seriousness of an issue. For example, what I term as a high-level query would be when the site server is down. I have to do that within 24 hours. We asked the consultant to put that into the system, but there's nothing that has happened so far. In terms of the severity of the problem, we were still stuck. We need to know how to handle those thresholds. 

I think our problem lies with training or perhaps capacity. The minute we get proper, simplified documentation, because the manual that we were given is not as user-friendly as possible.

We can get our messages via Outlook. I would like to be able to add alerts. For example, when you've been assigned to a particular query it should follow it up with what time the ticket will breach. They need to be looked into this, because sometimes it's just too short, especially when you need to escalate. 

Another thing is when you have to wait, maybe you should ask for more info. You may have to stop the service for some time until you gather all the information and work on it.

I think those are some of the things that we need to address. We have a whole lot of issues.

Because it is so new, the really valuable processes like Release, Availability, and Financial Management are just bare bones. Configuration requirements are extensive, even in basic Service Desk processes.

The categorization schema is not linked to the CMDB data model. This requires you to categorize twice, a pre-ITIL help desk approach that allows Service Desk agents to defeat the real value of linking processes via the CI involved.

The process to add fields is time consuming and requires the system to be offline while you apply an Edit Set.

There is room for improvement in the support. It is quite difficult to get support in a timely manner. 

The solution has all of the features we need. There isn't really anything missing. 

We'd like more integration with solutions like SolarWinds. 

There's a lack of integration with other products. This needs to be improved.

Technical support needs improvement as well. There's a lack of technicians and resale engineers in our country.

The user interface is good, but it could still use a bit of improvement.

We work closely with the vendor and have already submitted enhancement requests mainly around integration capabilities. Currently, the solution only supports SOAP web services, but a REST interface is on the roadmap and has been confirmed for mid-next year.