ServiceDesk Plus: fast but simple
July 21, 2019
ServiceDesk Plus: fast but simple
Score 9 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Overall Satisfaction with ServiceDesk Plus
It is being used as an ITSM system to provide support to end-users, change management, and problem management. It is used primarily by the IT department to service all the other departments.
- Great UI: the GUI is web-based, and it is extremely fast. Everybody loves how easy and fast it is to work with tickets (find, modify, add/find notes, etc.).
- Management: there are dashboards to provide individual and team-based workload management and awareness.
- Robust reporting: it's very easy to configure scheduled report jobs that provide insight into the overall performance of individual teams or persons.
- ServiceDesk Plus is a small tool, and it works well for small to medium-sized business needs. It is Windows, and doesn't scale particularly well.
- No automation: ServiceDesk Plus is very good at what it does out of the box, but if you want any customization or automation, then look somewhere else.
- Limited customization: you can't create dashboards, and there's limited ability to change ticket layouts.
- No multi-tenant capability: as we grow, we keep adding new instances of ServiceDesk Plus until we had 12 different instances. At this point, it is no longer feasible from a financial and administration point of view, so we migrated to a different ITSM platform that is designed with multi-tenant capability.
- The tool does not scale well from an ROI perspective. As you add a customer, you must add a new instance, hence a new license.
- The tool is probably on the expensive side (34,000 USD per 130 technicians per year).
- There is no usage beyond incident, change, and problem management. The CMDB feature is extremely limited and cannot generate additional ROI. There is no knowledge-base or integration with other software (other than ME Desktop Central).
Compared to Cherwell, SDP is much much faster, and easier to deploy, set up, and use. But it does not have automation, and has limited customization. Since it is smaller and easier, it does not require any development effort. On the other hand, it is far more expensive, considering its lower capabilities, and its licensing model is not concurrently based (each technician uses up a license, even if the technician is not actively logged in and using the tool).