It is built for small organizations all the way up through large organizations. We have 6,000 active users; 6,000 operators within the tool. It's a software for tracking something broken. You call into the help desk and say, "My X broke." Service Manager takes over from there, the person who's taking your information is pulling your information from Service Manager and they're putting that in the ticket and that ticket is in Service Manager, and your thing that broke is a record in Service Manager and they know all about that thing. We have, I don't know, close to 100,000-200,000 tickets a month.

Our volume is incredibly high. We have a lot of throughput of the number of tickets. Some of those are from users who've called in and said, "My X is broken." We have integration with automation and monitoring who can automatically create tickets within the tooling system. It works for a small, but we're not small we've been big the whole time.

It's scalable, but the scalability depends on the performance of the service. For example, if we need to extend the solution, we would need to review the configuration and performance of the platform before extending the solution.

We are a telecom company. 80% of our staff are technical staff. All employees use it for tasks or for complaints, et cetera. We have about 2,800 people using the product right now.

Scalability is a big plus for this platform, not only within IT, but if you have a complex IT environment, I think this is one of the solutions for you to consider.

It's a very scalable product, as with all HP's other products.

The solution can scale quite well. 

We have a few thousand people using the solution right now. It is used pretty intensely in our company.

Scalability is probably fairly good if you are willing to pay for it. It can be very pricey.

We have a worldwide system, but only about 120 people are inputting, tracking, or managing through Micro Focus Service Manager. From an ITIL perspective, we have people from all three levels using it, that is, level one, level two, and level three. We have administrators who can go in and back out and create types, items, systems, and things like that. Everybody else is pretty much just a regular user. They don't have a whole lot of roles within Micro Focus Service Manager.

Scalability has not been a big issue. The only complexity comes from the amount of Web clients needed to support a large implementation. Maintaining them, doing certificates for SSL if necessary and troubleshooting them at an individual level can get complicated.

So far, we haven't had any issues with scalability. We have about 35,000 users. There was one issue during the upgrade, but this was fixed. In general, it's a stable system.

It has met our scalability requirements.

The solution is widely scalable.

There's no problems there.

Not so far, but our user model to date has been relatively consistent. Growth in recent years has been driven outside of North America, meaning we have substantially more users and traffic, but it is spread over 24 hours.

Service Manager is scalable.

Micro Focus Service Manager is scalable up to a certain point.

We are a big company, but we also have small departments in the hospitals who have this system as well. So it is scalable.

Once you get the reference architecture, you just have to add people and the same product.

We are around 12,000 end users. Scalability is quite good. It's scalable enough. We have no problem with the scalability so far.

It is a totally scalable product.

Service Manager works for our size, but it has limits, like search and attachments. It has some architectural disadvantages, like an inability to search attachment contents and stuff like that. We have tens of thousands of users. 

It is highly scalable. We already use it on a kind of cloud architecture with several servers. We have what they call "horizontal scaling" with many servers. When we need to increase the bandwidth, we just need to provision some new VMs. It is easy to add to the cluster; so, extremely easy and scalable.

Scaling is always a challenge for us because we're so huge. Generally it does the job though.

We have 900 to 1,000 HP Service Manager users in our organization. I rate its scalability a ten out of ten.

The solution is quite scalable. Some of our clients include some utility companies in France and some clients in the nuclear and electricity industry. It's a solution that can scale well for enterprises.

It certainly scales. We work with some very large vendors and they use the same software. So it's quite clear that organizations that are larger than us don't have any problems using it.

Scalability is good. InterTelecom is a medium size company with many subscribers.

You have to have an idea of what the size of your organization is to begin with. So if you think, "we're only small," and then you actually realize you're discovering an awful lot of continuous integrations, then you may need to expand it.

So in the main, you've got to have a decent understanding about your organization in the first place, then make sure you scale it properly. Then from there on it's pretty scalable.

We have never had to scale the system out but cannot see any reason why this would not be OK; the system is built to handle this.

The scalability is quite good because we've been able to integrate other products like the Business Service Management into it. From a monitoring perspective, we are now able to create tickets as incidents happen, and correlate the ticket with other incidents. So, it's quite stable and scalable. You can do a lot of stuff with it.

It hasn't been an issue. We're fairly small, so it doesn't need to scale much.

Over the last five years, we had a huge project which involved everybody in the company switching over from Peregrine Service Center to HPE Service Manager. That was quite a huge achievement. In the past, we were not very satisfied with it; but after we upgraded the system, everything was okay.

Not that scalable. The functionalities still need to develop some, so that it's really scalable, and you can use it for operations management. 

It's salable for a price.

It has scaled mostly over the past few years, but I think it could be a bit more flexible in terms of how it scales and the upgrading aspect.

It's enterprise level, so it’s scalable. We do have some questions about deploying server automation globally, because we have integration with another part of our organization. It should be possible.

We're not a massive organization. We don't needs hundreds and hundreds of people in Service Manager. So right now, it suits our needs perfectly.

We are a company of 3000 employees and we have been able to use it effectively in our company.

It scales for our needs.

No

I think the scalability is good.

Micro Focus Service Manager's scalability is quite good.

We have more than 10 of our clients using this solution.