Automic Automation Reviews

Typically we use the product to automate the delivery of the files that we pick up from clients and use for processing. Once processing is over, we use it to deliver results downstream to the client's delivery center.

So far, it has been outstanding. We haven't had any issues with it. It has saved us both money as well improved our overall quality.

Cost savings, productivity, the overall quality. When we do have an issue, it's typically not the software that we're using.

It's hard for me to say how it improves the way the company works, because I've only been here for about six months. I know that we've come to rely on it as a standard feature, as to how our processes are designed.

Doing more with less. It's allowing us to increase our overall volumes of data that we're working with, without actually increasing the overall amount of team that we need to monitor it. Since we can rely on its availability and quality, it has not been an issue.

It seems still very technical to get the full features out, which is fine when you're an IT-based company. But once you get to some of the leadership levels, such as myself, you don't have time to go digging into it. It would be nice to have some additional performance features such as reporting, analytics, that kind of stuff.

I've not had any issues with the stability, at all. None that I'm aware of.

I don't know about scalability yet.

I do know that because of what seems to be a simple solution, we are looking at Automic and, CA in general, for ways that we can leverage the technology in our other areas.

I have not used technical support personally, but my team has used it. We've always found them very helpful.

The most important criteria when selecting a vendor are, overall: 

• reliability
• experience
• references.

There are a lot of good ideas out there, not a lot of proven ideas, this one seems to have proved itself.

If I were to give advice to a colleague who is looking at similar solutions, I would have them have a general idea of where they see the company now, and where they're hoping that the company can be in the next two to five to seven years. Then, look not just at this one product, but the suite of offerings that they have, in making the selection. It seems to me that if we work with Automic and it works very well, the same reasons why we enjoy that product would also apply broader to the company CA.

Primary use case is to automate our batch processing for our DNA applications, which is our core banking application.

It has helped us automate our processes. It has taken the human factor out of it, so it has improved accuracy, speed, and coordination of our batch processes. It has allowed us to have a hands-off approach to our batch processing and automate complex processes amongst different systems. 

It is very scalable and robust, and it keeps growing with us.

We are working on the 12.1 release right now. It has a lot of things that we have been asking for. I do not have a wish list right now. 

The stability of the platform has been excellent. They are very quick to reply to any issues that we have, and release any hotfixes to fix any issues we have had. We have not had any stability issues with the platform. 

When I joined my company, we were using an application from AppWorks. I was part of the decision process to do the beta with One Automation when UC4 bought them, and then became Automic. I was also part of the decision to stay with the platform and to continue to renew each year.

I was involved in the initial setup. The software itself was pretty straightforward. We converted from the Application Manager Platform to the One Automation Platform, and it was a little complex to get our jobs migrated over. Once they were migrated over, it was pretty straightforward. The software itself was pretty straightforward to install and get going.

Really take a look at Automic. They are a great company to work with and they have the best automation package out there. We did look at a lot of different packages when we were out there. I was not part of the initial decision process, but I did see the use cases that they did, the companies that they looked at, because they made the decision shortly after I came.

They looked at BMC and Tivoli. It was quite a while ago, but they were able to come and do a proof of concept very quickly with our use cases and really show value quickly.

The solution has performed excellent for us. However, the interface with the DNA platform and the partnership with Pfizer has not been as smooth as we would like it to be, but that is not the software's problem. The software itself has been very good.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: partnership. We do not like to have vendor relationships where we just hear from the vendor every so often. We like to have that partnership where they listen to what we need and work with us to fix our solutions. Every company has their own issues they need to solve, and we want somebody that is going to work with us to help us with our growth and what we are facing in the industry.

We use it to automate infrastructure and business. We do quite a lot of different stuff: sometimes orchestration, sometimes more automation.

It saves a lot of time and mistakes, because we used to do a lot of manual work. Since we added automation a little bit over a year now, it has enhanced our daily work, especially for the very repetitive tasks that we did.

We can use anything on the server, like PowerShell and flash. We can use whatever language that will make things easier.

Depending on the properties of the jobs and pre- and post-conditions, there needs to be more flexible and richer conditions that I can check for. This would be a great addition.

It is stable 99% of the time.

Our issues have been mostly because of the Tomcat interface. The other interface, the fat client, has been stable until now, and looks good.

It is very scalable.

Technical support is very good.

If the environment is straightforward, then the initial setup will be straightforward.

It saves us from making a lot of mistakes. It is now easier to align complex things.

Automic is gaining much more ground than other products. The other one is the BMC, but it is not as good. 

We are working with telecoms to automate workloads. The use cases include automation from inception to activation. Some use cases also deal with professional services.

Our use cases are reflected in the cloud-based Workload Automation.

The ease of deployment makes it easier when it comes to the development and testing of the automations.

It integrates well with the CICD pipeline.

We would like a way to test our cloud-based automations on-premises, and then migrate them to the cloud after they have been tested, without needing an additional license. As developers, this would help us.

In the future, I would like to see a system where each developer works on their own changes, and they are submitted to a controller. At that point, the controller has the option to accept or reject changes from each of the developers.

I have been working with Automic Workload Automation for about four years.

I use many tools in combination with this product including Jenkins, GitHub, and GitLab.

This is a very stable product and personally, I have not had any issues with it. Our vision includes continuing to use it in the future.

Automic Workload Automation is scalable. I have experience with larger companies in different regions and I can say that a high number of IT staff, between 70% and 85% use automation tools.

For this product specifically, there are between 40 and 45 users.

Personally, I do not have experience with technical support. However, I think people in our team have been in contact with them.

We did not have a plan to adopt this product and didn't even discover it right away. Rather, we followed the new technologies and came up with new strategies that led us to it.

The initial setup is easy.

The first time we installed it, the process took between 30 and 45 minutes. After that, we replicated the installation and to deploy it takes no more than 10 minutes.

My team is responsible for the deployment. One person is enough for the task. For the implementation from end-to-end, it should take between six and twelve hours.

There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

This is absolutely a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The production controls the test environment and test batches. The performance is very good.

Our key feature is that we have different clients for different environments. We can manage all our environments using a transport case as a name of a feature. It is very helpful to have the same setup in each environment.

The new user interface needs improvement. The previous version was good and stable. Now, we have to check the new one before using a web browser. It is not stable.

We have been waiting 11 years for release management, which will be in the next release.

Stability is okay.

The scalability is good because you can add on as many services and processes as you want.

We used the technical support in the beginning, who were easy to work with.

In the last couple of years, there was no need for it.

We had a couple of solutions in place starting from Windows, Unix crontab, and other batch controlling software (like Control-M, Redwood, etc.).

Batches interact with all applications, so the batch structure is more complex and using different tools was not a solution. Therefore, we needed to have one single workflow as a solution for us, and we made the decision to have one tool in place. Then, we did an evaluation, and the winner was CA.

The initial setup was straightforward. With outsourcing, it made it simple.

We have received a lot of time and cost efficiencies from using the product.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: The tool is more important than the vendor.

• Look how comfortable the tool is. 
• How it has performed. 
• The vendor name or costs are just a second point of the evaluation.

Currently, we build self-service for our customers. This means they come to us and ask for special solutions, then we build a generic self-service which can be used for this customer. This solution is like the action pack from the Atomic marketplace.

Currently, we can implement business flows versus workflows where the customer does not have the manpower to implement it. We use it with automation, getting more speed to solve business processes. It is also possible to eliminate median breaks. 

Most valuable is the script language that we use. There is also the opportunity to use the database information inside of the automation engine and current existing objects that you can stack against it.

I use this automation solution, because it is very flexible. This automation solution supports a lot of computer platforms. Also, a lot of operating systems are supported other than automation solutions. 

The one big advantage is the Bose-Bose implementation methods. One is with the graphical use interface, where you can use small items, and it is possible to implement via programming language, but mostly this is not the case. 

Mostly from my point of view, I need to isolate what is the use case of the customer, and what needs to be done. This is not technical.

I need better stability.

I have worked a long time with this product. Formally, it was previously known as UC4. In the past, it was more stable than now. 

As we have seen, the latest version that we checked out at our customers was Version 12. This version needs to be more stable. 

The first version and service pack, we could not use at our customers because it had special bugs and issues, and we decide to wait. 

From my point of view, the current product needs more stability.

The scalability works fine. My impression is on the implementation at the customer. If the hardware and the base implementation were implemented carefully, it scales fine because you need to take care of the database on a lower level. On the network infrastructure, if you start a lot of server nodes, then it works fine.

If I work with a customer (as a consultant), they do not want a straightforward setup. Therefore, I have not seen an out-of-the-box setup, because I have not seen a normal implementation.

We spare costs because we can realize possibilities which are not implemented in case of missing manpower. It is also possible to eliminate manpower costs in other cases, like service level support, which may no longer be necessary because of this machine. We do not need a call center because we can use machines. We can raise cases, then we do not need to pinpoint exact causes nor assign the exact responsible business unit because the machine can decide itself.

Our customers also evaluated Redwood Software. However, they do not have the same flexibility as CA.

I would recommend Automic.

Most important criteria for our customers when selecting a vendor: 

• Flexibility
• A supportive platform
• The licensing costs.

Our primary use case is the SAP area, but we do provide Workload Automation services for other applications as well.

The solution is integrated across all applications and platforms in our company. We can provide everything from the very first data source to the data target in one immense code.  With the automation, we are able to provide background services. It is very economical and not possible to do manually. 

It is part of our IT service. Without this solution, we are not competitive.

The most valuable feature is the combination of normal job management with file transfer and scripting, so we have everything onboard.

I would like to see the following in future releases:

• Workload Automation in a cloud
• Solutions for the smaller applications.

It runs stably. However, after a version upgrade, the stability should be better.

There are too many bugs to be solved after a version upgrade. We are working on the limits of an architecture with 16,000 platforms. It is impossible to test everything out in the software lab of CA. I wish it would be improved.

The scalability in the SAP area is very good. We are able to provide hundreds of different services and system incidences. 

I see a huge possibility in cloud solutions. We are looking to offer future services out of the cloud.

We have had good experiences using their technical support.

I have offered other companies to come view the solution at our company and see how it works. Most companies have been happy to do.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

1. Functionality
2. Solution needs to be economic.

To automate our processes, they run on batches.

Performance has been very good, actually.

Having automated, real-time notifications. If something is not available it's automatic where or whom to notify. And it's continuous processing.

There are a lot of ways it helps us, especially on the operations side, that it doesn't require manual intervention, that's one of them.

Ease of migration to a newer version.

Regarding stability, so far it's working fine with us.

So far scalability is good.

It's rare that we use technical support. Usually we take care of it, and if support is required they're able to get back to us right away. We're satisified with the support.

Straightforward.

It works for the company, so far. Most of our team is familiar with it, so I think we are going to have it for a long time, which is a good thing. 

It's not the only application that we have, we also have the other version. I came from a different company that ACI bought, and ACI had the other version of the Automic Workload Automation. So now we have two, they have the operations manager, we have the application manager.

In terms of looking at vendors, what's important is the reputation of the company.

I gave it a 10 out of 10 because, so far, I haven't had an issue with this product. And it works for the company.

If you need some automation, especially in batch processing, it's easy to handle and also the support that they provide is excellent, so I don't think you are going to have a problem with it.