ServiceNow Reviews

We use this solution for many things, such as ITFM, incident problem change, configuration, and vulnerability response.

There are a lot of features within ServiceNow. There are plenty of add-ons that go beyond the typical core helpdesk operations, such as HR facilities, BRM functionality, and various compliance and governance capabilities. Additionally, they provide a strong security suite with vulnerability, no-code integration, self-service options, and a virtual assistant. 

In an upcoming release, there should be more administration tools.

I have been using this solution for six years.

The solution is very stable. However, we did have an outage once because their data center was potentially down.

We have not had any issue with the scalability, it is very good. 

We have 17,000 users and out of those we currently have approximately 1200 active users using this solution.

When we had an outage the technical support contacted us to let us know what was happening. They have an engineering level of support that is very good. 

They could do more follow-ups in relation to issues being resolved.

I would rate the technical support of ServiceNow an eight out of ten.

I am working for a large company and we were using another service provider before that was expensive and complex. I am not sure how many people are still using the old service we were using before because it is outdated compared to other solutions. ServiceNow has a lot more people supporting it, it is a lot easier to find developers, and it is a much more modern platform.

The setup starts out easy but it can get complex quickly.

It is important to be prepared for yearly system updates. Normally your subscription will come with access to those new updates but you need to be ready to quickly update to the latest versions.

I have found the solution very expensive.

My advice to others is to make sure they understanding what they are going to use ServiceNow for which is important. There are a lot of cheaper solutions that can do many tasks, such as tracking and work management, that might satisfy their needs better. With this solution, as your company scales up, you are going to need more people to support it. It is a very popular platform and requires a lot of configuration and development to make it useful to an organization. 

Everybody wants to customize the solution to make it fit their business model, which is what it is meant for. Even though they have no-code development tools within the platform, having well-skilled developers in your organization will help you move along smoothly. 

Having a team that can support the solution is important for success. Unless you have it outsourced, However, you will still have the governance aspect of it to oversee what the roadmap is.

I rate ServiceNow a nine 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.

It's serving our end-user community, making it simple for them to order products, get service from our incident help desk, and perhaps even helping everyone across the globe because we have to stay connected somehow, and ServiceNow does that for us.

We've just launched the visual task boards in the last year, so we're still learning how to do that effectively. Right now, we're trying to do a comparison of what we do with our internal chat and using the chat inside ServiceNow, so a lot of things that we're still learning, and we're trying to break ground so to speak, so that we can get better.

I think I want to focus in on our assets. We do many things for studios, and internally, we use a lot of hardware, so we want to be able to find and understand where our assets sit. If there's a breakdown in communication, how do we service that? We've recently launched with one of the certified partners. How we do a better job in tracking those assets once it comes on location, and then it gets into the inventory. That's the key piece. It's how do we manage those assets, manage the cost, manage where they are, and make sure people have access to that equipment.

Maybe cost in one sense because when you make that investment from the other side of it, you're looking at the cost, but we've been having that ongoing debate. Empty glass could be your cost, but the full glass or maybe half full, or half empty. If it's half full, that means you're getting great things out of it. If it's half empty, you're so worried about the cost. Where are you going to trim. We're going down the path of, "How do we shape our roadmap so that we understand what that investment is going to do for us?" We're using the Champions Enablement Tool to help us chart that out. We have our own internal tool, and there's a lot of similarities, but I think what we want to do is just channel it the way ServiceNow is intending it to.

We've been on it since Calgary, so we were early adopters. We're currently on Fuji. We will probably move to Geneva probably in the fall.

Recently, we've been working with the support because they've been notifying us that there are certain things that may be slowing down our system. Right away, they've advised us that they have that ability to transition us seamlessly and to help us with our connectivity. There are some complaints internally still that we're trying to wade through, but overall we've been quite happy with it. Connectivity for the most part has been very good.

It's tremendous. Just recently, we rolled out the GRC module. It was specific to one of our security teams. At the moment, it was just to help them with their auditing, how they manage their compliance. Now, the part of the business has gotten wind that this is out there. It was demoed. Now, people are coming to us in that sense.

The Service Catalog continues to grow over a hundred service catalog forms, and people want to get rid of the old email in our office, department envelopes, the email, and the shoulder tapping. Now, we're able to centralize them through the portal. In fact, that's another thing, the portal that we have. We had user issues with the community portal on Eureka.

It was scattered. It was decentralized, so people in their own locations were tracking a certain way or doing things a certain way. Some people had barcoding systems and scanned assets, while other locations were just eyeballing it and logging it onto spreadsheets. We knew there's a problem, and just like the Chief Product Officer is saying, you want to automate where you can, and this is where we want to go.

We went out to go get a certified partner's product and cross-views, and they've helped us really just make it look and feel more friendly than when now you look at Helsinki, it's like right in alignment of where we are today and where we want to continue to go, so those are the other things that we have to weigh out.

I wasn't part of that implementation team. I came in to really get the program together because we had our enterprise architect team implement it. However, I think the guys had fun implementing it because they were looking forward to actually getting it in place, start using it, and start deploying it. 

Upgrades through the years have been pretty tough. We didn't get the sandbox right away, so it made hard on our users where we have to do all the testing and make sure we understand the differences between out of the cloud versus what we did with custom development. That took just a little bit longer in analysis and testing implementation.

First question I would ask is, "What are you waiting for? You've described to me all your problems that you're having. You're decentralized. You're disparate. You have all these things that are hanging out there. You don't have a way to communicate essentially through people. Come on board."

I took the governance class. It was a day and a half, and I sat at a table with people that had the same problems. We had a new implementation in the two months prior. We have someone that's on a competitor's application, and they've already made the decision to come in ServiceNow, but it took the management team to say, "Hey, we need to do this. We got to get better at what we're doing." Really, it's all practical in the sense of filling the need, and it's making it simple not only for the end-user, but if you saw the key note today, the backend where the developers and the systems. It's going to be really helpful for everyone.

It's right from our own internal processes, and matching staffing needs, and meeting the customers' needs, and then also ServiceNow coming in where cost has to be helpful to us. We know the platform is there.

I would say the ability to create applications that follow a standard workflow as well as record producers. We handle a lot of requests from our entire university. The biggest thing is giving our users a service catalog with a bunch of simple items, most of them are record producers, some of them need a workflow, just allowing them to go in and very simply submit request. For us that's probably the most valuable feature.

They've gotten to a pretty good place with where they are right now. I think a lot of it is going to be that citizen developer, making things a little bit easier to interface with. I really like the new rest messaging they put in there that allows for much easier integrations. I like most of the new application stuff and the IDE. I'd say from here, just smoothing out that whole IDE development process, making it easier to make changes to global in the IDE if that's where they really want us. Some improvements are probably needed there but I don't have anything massive on my list that ServiceNow needs to do.

I've personally used it for about four years.

I had no issues. When there is potential for a downtime, they always email me and let me know. Even when I get those emails, I've experienced mild hiccups but beyond that, I've never been locked out for more than maybe 30 seconds in 4 years.

When we started, we had about 35-40 IT folks inside of ServiceNow, plus probably about a thousand end-users logging in for self-service. Now we've probably about quadrupled that at this point and run into very little snags. I would say the biggest thing with scalability for us from a ServiceNow perspective is just make sure your user data matches whatever you're using elsewhere. We use single sign on and we need to make sure that the user data in ServiceNow matches that so that users can actually get in when they're supposed to get in.

It's mostly good. I would say there had been times where it's taking a long time for a resolution. Sometimes that's probably just due to the fact that whatever I'm submitting is not that important. I'll happily admit that.

I've had some issues that have taken four to five months to get fixed. Again, we're not talking the show stoppers. When I needed something, I've had probably two cases in the last few years where it's just been absolutely integral, like I'd get an answer right now. They were pretty good in those situations.

I would tell you that for me and for what our business uses, I highly recommend it, but that you should look at their business case and see if you need a product as fully-featured as ServiceNow is because it comes at a cost. Depending on what your needs are, it's possible to look at other products. There are a lot of similar products out there. ServiceNow is probably not the cheapest but if you have a specific set of needs particularly the ease of building applications, request forms, stuff I mentioned earlier, I think it's the best product on the market.

We initially got on board because it's a single system of record, and we're trying to centralize a lot of different apps. It's enabled us to decommission a number of different systems that we were using such as incident change, problem management, asset management, financial etc. and it's enabled us to pull them all together so now we can develop an entire portal inside of ServiceNow. We just enabled it last month, to bill out catalog items and we have been able to use the financial element to then cross bill all to our lines of business, so it's been huge success for us so far.

There's are a lot of benefits, and it depends on our audience. In the department I work in, Technology Portfolio Business Management, the biggest benefit was the ability to do asset management in a centralized place and to do the financial elements of that together. I also work with the Infrastructure Team and their key element right now was to centralize incident problem and change and build those functions out of the company. We're now expanding it to another audience which is our global Network Operations Center, and for them the biggest benefit is going to be a centralized dashboard of all their event management. Then we have another infrastructure team that would say the biggest benefit is probably the business process mapping element and the ability when there is an incident to be able to drill down and understand exactly where those problems are in the environment.

It's so new to us, everything is shiny and everything works well so it's hard to state that right now. We are pretty much loving everything, especially at Knowledge 16 where we got all kinds of new ideas to expand our footprint in the company. I'd say we don't have a lot of negatives, quite yet. There's a few little limitations that we run into with each of our implementations but they're very minor. Drill down capabilities and reports maybe or I think one of the bigger ones we ran into with our financial management implementation was that there weren't enough layers in the hierarchy to do all the split costing that we were trying to do but we worked through it. We just managed it a different way. Part of it was how we did it beforehand and trying to bring that in versus what ServiceNow says is the best practice, so we're still adapting.

We've been using Geneva in-house for about six months.

It's been beautiful. We spun the thing up as soon as we signed the contract. Right away they asked us what they names were. We had development tests and production instances. I can't speak to how fast it was bit to was pretty quick. We've not had any system interruptions whatsoever. It's been available 24/7.

We had some homegrown tools, and for incident management itself we had a multi tenant instance with a vendor called Compucon. We shared an instance which wasn't going well, so we brought it in house and then decommissioned our internal apps.

It was incredibly easy. We had the vanilla version and then we used a professional services vendor to kind of help us weed through what was there, to help us understand it, do some initial workflow set up, so it was very simple.

Our current challenge, because it's a little bit of a rub right now is we're going through re-negotiations on contract because absolutely you're going through the big sales pitch, it can do everything at a cost. We were given all of it, and we purchased a small amount and now we're saying, "Oh yeah, we want to do that." Well, more fees for that, more fees for that. So it's been a real challenge to understand what that pricing structure looks like.

That's one thing how they bill off of nodes and CI's and stuff for some of the capabilities and then we've had a challenge with. Getting to a steady state with our IT users, understanding what capabilities they can truly have with the matrix that was provided to us, and then given a sufficient amount of time after go-live to really reconcile and get to a steady state before we go through and re-calibrate the contract to include whatever. So that's an active conversation that's happening right now but we're working with some great people so we're confident we'll get through it.

So far the people we've been working with are great. The system is available all the time, and we have high hopes for the single system of record concept where everything is linked together. We love the user experience concept that we're starting to roll out. That's a huge piece for us as our big disconnect from our business slash end users in IT, the way they communicate, throw things over the fence. We see this as a great opportunity to kind of bridge that gap and kind of bring both players together.

One of the reasons we're moving over financial management in addition to system of record is we use VMWare and we're shutting down for very specifically to that container or that tool. I think we're paying VMware three, four, or five times what we're paying with ServiceNow so, we have a huge desire to get off that in short order plus we're already seeing more features in ServiceNow for value add then what we had in VMWare.

For me I believe it would have to be the real time reporting capabilities that it has, as well as the knowledge management features as far as reporting. We're just getting kicked off with trying to push knowledge management out into the organization. It's important to get a read on how it's being accepted as well as what's being used and how we can improve upon it in real-time.

I believe because it has so many different pieces to it and they're all interconnected, they're all interrelated. As you know, in IT everything relies on everything else. That fact alone that the CMDBs in the middle and everything feeds into it and comes out of it. That alone is an essential piece to the strategy.

Look at the cost savings that's there for it, the capability. So many companies nowadays want to make sure that they're on an ITIL compliant platform and ServiceNow is definitely that platform. I'd have to say that's one of the big business drivers. If you merge with another company, you've got an immediate capability to include them and bring them on board.

I think within knowledge management the editor could be greatly improved. To me it's very archaic looking. One of the issues is when you go to pull a document in there - we're talking about knowledge, we're talking about how to do something in many cases. It doesn't do numbered lists very well. As soon as you put a picture in it starts your numbering over. I don't know if there's something wrong with our implementation or it's just out of the box. We have it set up out of the box. That's one of the downsides. In general I hear a lot of people say that the interface from a back end. From the folks that have the IT role, it's not a pretty picture.

Myself here with this organization I've used it for about two years, and with other organizations on and off for about two years plus. Currently, we're on Geneva.

We've had a little bit of slowness at times. We're looking into the heart of that and I think that maybe some of that is maybe our implementation. The way we've gone about setting up database calls and things like that. It's hard to say. I can't really speak to that because I'm not working so much with that group. Occasionally, depending on the implementation I've seen it always run smooth and fast.

Other times we have to deal with the internet is right in the middle because it's cloud based. You never know if that's the reason for the lateness. Overall it's a great product.

Well from what I understand I can't speak to that really well. It seems quite scalable. I know other companies that are much larger than ours that have had an excellent implementation. I was in a talk where the gentleman was from a large company that had a huge investment in it, and they were using it across four hundred and fifty thousand employees or something huge.

In my past lives they have used Remedy as well as HP Service Desk at the time. At a previous company, I helped to implement HP Service Desk.

I don't know how it has been here, but in other places it's been a very straightforward and simple implementation. What it really requires is all the pre-work. If you're going to implement it you want to have an understanding of what you're stakes are. For example, in incident management. What the teams are going to do. What the processes are going to be worked out within the tool. That's an important aspect. A lot of people may think that you implement a tool and you have it. It's not that simple. You have to do a lot of work before you implement to make sure you have your processes in place.

One of the things important, if you're going to put new processes in it, have them written down and have them well understood and well documented before you implement it in the tool. Once you implement in a tool, that's when you can really start to improve on it. If you just go forward and put it in a tool and you don't have any documented process then you're back to square one. You don't know what you're improving and you're making changes and it's not a pretty picture.

We have a young lady who's very adept and she's moving forward with that. Making great things happen.

Make sure you have your processes well defined before you go to implement a tool because that's where you're going to get your real payoff. It's going to really help you improve things if you have all that well documented, well understood before you have it implemented. I think that's the biggest thing.

I think that they could do a lot better on thr interface. Especially for the back end because we can build all kinds of- there's all kinds of companies out there that create all these things. At some point you would think that they want to improve these certain aspects of it that- like knowledge management.

Most of our tickets go through ServiceNow.

Any tickets that we need to open in order to interact with other teams and make things happen go through ServiceNow. 

When I need to create an AWS account, I use ServiceNow. I need to use ServiceNow to request a new machine. 

We use ServiceNow for everything that requires us to interact with other teams.

They use it for internal communication across all departments.

What I believe works well is the chain of tasks that occurs when you follow up after completing a task. The subsequent chain of tasks, I believe, is valuable.

The interface, in my opinion, is not very good. It's very unclear where the status is and what steps I need to take next. I don't think the layout is very good.

The interface requires an upgrade. I'm not sure if I'm using the most recent version, which could be the issue. However, I don't have control over which versions we use, and I do find the interface to be very cumbersome, there is a lot of information here, and it's difficult to find what you are looking for. 

I find myself occasionally looking at the request and wondering if I already approved it or not because the status is a little strange. It's not great.

It's not very intuitive.

I interact with ServiceNow quite a bit. I have been using it for eight years.

ServiceNow is relatively stable. I haven't noticed any problems with stability.

I believe it scales well, but I'm not sure. I'm not familiar with the back end or how it's set up.

It performs well, I have never had any problems with performance.

The company employs over 40,000 people. I'm going to say that the majority of people will need to use it, or maybe half of them use ServiceNow extensively.

I've never had any contact with technical support.

Black Duck, Veracode, and SonarQube are some of the tools we use.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup because it was already in place when I joined the organization.

I've heard that some of its features are difficult to implement. I've never done it myself, but from what I've heard from other teams, it takes a long time to create a full flow. It's not quite that easy.

We have a team that handles updates, patches, and fixes.

I would rate ServiceNow a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for change management and program management. Let's say, for example, if someone across our state needs a license. My team will send the request to me and I would approve it. For other tasks, they might send me a ticket and I would either approve it or add additional comments, however, that's it. 

The workflow and the general effectiveness of the processes have helped improve how our organization functions.

The workflow makes things extremely efficient and it improves effectiveness.

The product integrates well with other solutions. 

The stability has been very good so far.

We have found that the product can scale. 

Technical support has been helpful.

One of the areas that need improvement is when the product was implemented, they did not do a very good job of explaining all these features and functions, and capabilities of the tool. That could have been an implementation issue on our organization's side. This could have happened by not including end-users in order to get their input or to understand what this tool offers. It was kind of just pushed out. For example, while the tool could potentially do a hundred things, only 20 of the capabilities were explained. The other 80 we have to figure out on our own. It could have been explained and rolled out better, however, that could have been just an implementation issue on our side as well.

It became kind of complex to set it up without a general lack of knowledge of the particular feature-function capabilities. Features and capabilities could have been explained better to the end-users.

I have used the solution for about a year.

The stability is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The product definitely can be scaled. We're working now to integrate it with other workflow products, so it's definitely scalable.

We've dealt with technical support in the past. We have a service desk. Since it's on-prem, it's been pretty good. Tech support has been helpful and we have no complaints. 

We did previously use a different solution, however, with ServiceNow, we find that it offers better scalability, ease of use, features, and functions.

My team did not implement ServiceNow, we do not maintain it and we do not service it. We just use the product.

I don't know what they had on the setup and the implementation part in terms of setting up servers and configuring servers and things like that. I don't know what that entails. We just know when we got it, we got a product. So what difficulties they might've had setting in up with, I don't know. I can't speak to that.

I don't handle any aspect of the payments or licensing process. I can't speak to it from personal experience. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I go in and approve service tickets, however, I am not a hardcore user of that platform. My team sends me a request, I open it up and I review the ticket and I approve it, and then it moves on. I don't follow the workflow or anything like that.

Our team uses the most recent version of the solution.

I would advise potential new users to make sure that in that user community, end-users are involved in the implementation from beginning to end and make sure that the end-users fully understand the features and capabilities of the tool before it is implemented across an organization. Their involvement is key to a successful implementation and very important.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.