Automic Automation Reviews

We have several corporate solutions that need to be integrated with our ITSM products.

Automic facilitates integration to ensure the correct execution of ITIL process workflows. The first was to create service offerings for provisioning virtual machines in both private and public cloud environments.

The creation of virtual machines would have to contemplate the current process of changes, releases, and configurations. Our service catalog should make service offerings available; these involved diverse operating systems, different hardware configurations, and some functioning web services.

An approval process would also be contemplated, where the main steps would be the registration and closing of the change tickets, as well as the registration and deactivation of the generated configuration items.

We have several solutions, but we opted for Automic following the natural evolution of CA Process Automation. The fact that it has native integration with ITSM solutions was also an important factor in the decision. Due to the various possible integrations, all of them need to be in accordance with the ITIL process. This would facilitate the actions that would come in order to implement a DevOps culture in the organization.

The service support is acceptable and response times are fast, whether from the manufacturer itself or from partners.

Due to the fact that we have several solutions to be integrated into the ITSM processes, the possibility of having multiple client areas is important because it favors organizing integrations and automations.

We have other products from Broadcom (CA Technologies) in operation, and integration with these products was very smooth. It integrates easily with CA Service Desk Manager, CA Service Catalog and CA Process Automation, and more.

Adding that to the various packages and plugins available at Marketplace, the learning curve to make automation work was very fast.

We found that some Actions Packs and plugins do not have documentation, are incomplete, or are of poor quality. In most of the packages available, it took time to study and gain knowledge of the features and resources due to poor documentation. This time could be reduced if the documentation was more complete.

If the documentation is not well built, there will always be extra time for testing and some of these generate doubts that turn a simple job into something complex. With the project's schedules in progress, it is difficult to set deadlines, even if they are adjusted for more.

I have been using Automic Workload Automation for two years.

The product demonstrates excellent stability, regardless of whether the installation has high availability or not. We have not seen any problems in this regard.

It is a product that scales easily, but with a short aggregate in its version with high availability.

The most experienced support team is international. Some professionals at the time of implantation are no longer available. The service responds quickly to doubts and so far we have had no difficulties in this regard.

We have also used CA Process Automation, MS System Center Orchestrator, and Control-M.

Complexity only exists when installing high availability. Support from the manufacturer was required.

It was through a Broadcom partner. The team was very experienced in the product, including with use cases in a company in the same area in which our organization operates.

We don't have enough time to calculate ROI yet, but we are optimistic.

There are different licensing fees for cases where high availability is important. There is also a certain complexity in this type of installation.

We only evaluated Broadcom (CA Technologies) products.

Overall, the user experience is extremely good. The monitoring and troubleshooting features are rich and with the dashboards and other features, automation work is made easier.

Primary use case is to automate our SAP job workflows and all the job workflows that we work with. Thus, to get better performance in our company by automating everything that we are working on. So far, it has been working well.

It is easy to learn, but hard to master. If you have been working for years with this product, it is easy to understand the whole product and work with the needs that we have. Therefore, it offers a lot of things that we require. So, it is really good.

Automic is perfect to work with for a lot of job loads. It is perfectly done to combine the needs that we need. Therefore, it is a good solution for our requirements.

We are able to combine job scripting on the server and automation engine on the GUI. Therefore, we are capable to work in SAP and on the servers, then file transfer the whole product line, which Automic offers.

Some of the usual features are now not there, for example: For calendar details, in versions before, you could see it because it was a different color or different letter. Now, it is all similar icons, and some features are marking more objects than just one, which is making it not possible to see anymore. There are some features which were basic and are now gone. I heard that they are coming back. So, I hope it will get better.

I would like the transport case to be in a new feature. This way, you can stage objects to be more flexible and with easy automation. Right now, it is not that easy to transport some things automatically. Thus, it would be nice if these were some of the features which will be offered as part of the critical path which is coming. It would be nice to set our own critical paths, so these workflows can be critical because there are some important workflows running. This is critical for us, but it would also be nice.

Right now, it is decent. The new version is sort of a downgrade because some features that we need are gone. The version before was more stable than the current one because we are having some problems with the performance. Therefore, I hope the next version(s) will be better again. However, right now, it is not as good as it used to be.

Scalability is good for us. We are growing, so this is perfect for us. It is easy to scale. So, it is good.

We work with a partner who offers technical support.

If the company is big, use Automic because you are able to automate things more easily. 

If the company is smaller, use Control-M. The understanding of it is easier than Automic, because it offers more. So, if you are smaller and don't need such overload, use something else, like Control-M.

The version before was overloaded because if opened various windows, it was not easy to understand if you were new to the product. The newest version is easier to understand. However, right now, the performance is not as good as it used to be and some features are gone. There are still improvements needed. It is decent, and there are good ideas, but there are still improvements needed. 

The primary use case is scheduling business automation. Its performance is good.

It works to automate business processes over all the systems. You have a central point where you can automate everything.

It had a big impact on time, cost, and resources because it was the first product that we used which was supported all our platforms. The biggest impact is its central point of control. We now have one point where we can see everything: The whole workflow of a business process, if it is hanging or if it is still running.

The most valuable features are that a lot systems are supported. You can use this for z/OS, Windows, Unix, SAP, etc.

The problem is when you have a major update, afterwards you have small problems. This is with every software where you have to find some solutions for your problems after updates. However, after the problems are fixed, the stability is really good.

We have some problems with updates where some functions are changed, so you have to check your whole system to see if everything is still running. The update process for us is around two months of testing and one day of updates.

The stability is good. 

Scalability is great.

We have needed the technical support, especially after updates. We also needed technical support for problems. Though most of our problems in the last few years were not based on Workload Automation, but the database that we are working in.

It takes a time until you get the right person, but when you get the right person, they are really helpful.

We were previously using CA-7.

There are a lot of new features, but we do not use them because they are too expensive. The price point could be less.

You can't go wrong with Automic, because it is supporting every common system.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: 

1. Stability.
2. Support.

In our company, we use it for the following:

• Scheduling of SAP and ERP jobs.
• Backing up most of our servers.
• ITSM and scheduling using the automation agent.
• Running our non-ERP jobs, or for some other applications. 
• File transfer and automation services.

We were using UC4, which was very good. We have had some challenges within the application as it moves forward to the new features. 

For example, our users are used to the flatline of the UC4. When we introduced the AVI, they are not interested nor motivated to use it.

There are some challenges because of the new features and the new change of interfaces. Nevertheless, we use this application to organize our jobs and to integrate the applications within the company. It is useful for report generation and backups.

It is good and efficient in terms of workload.

• File transfer
• The solution for rocket automation, as a file transfer and its agents.
• Mostly SAP scripting.
• Integration with most of the platforms that we have within the company's Windows, Linux, and Unix. Integrating these inside the automation agent for scheduling, backups, file transfer, and SAP jobs.

We have a lot of file transfers with Quest. Hopefully, their product management can add this feature since we do the file transfers now with SharePoint.

We want to establish a service where we can be a file transfer expert for everything. We want an automation engine that we can use within our company. We would like to use this particular software to provide file transfer service.

It is more stable now. In the previous versions 8 and 10, it is more stable, but with the AVI version 12, it is more complicated and we encounter a lot of problems. We need to install hot pieces and badges every time, so it means downtime for us. This is starting from version 12, which is why we are not happy with it. 

It provides a large scale for us, because it is flexible, in terms of usage. We have done a proof of concept within this application.

I think we are known to the technical support. Unfortunately, the technical support does not help much with our problems until you get to the gurus due to the complexity of our problems.

Automation is very powerful. This solution is flexible in terms of platform integration. They need better CA support , because in terms of issues and problem solving, the support is not good. It would be much better if CA had some dedicated support to customers.

We use it for scheduling our batch systems and interfacing with our developers and our test systems.

It has performed very well. We've had the product for a number of years, since 2013, but before that we had another product called AppWorks for a dozen years or so. And then AppWorks was acquired by Automic. We keep moving up.

The new release is web-based, so that's a big, big improvement. A lot of our products that we use right now are going to that platform.

It's easy to train other people. A new developer could come in and learn it very quickly.

Better escalation process for alert notifications. When there's an error or a problem, the automation part of it could be easily programmed to escalate it up to the developers or whoever is going to work on it. We had to home-grow that within the product because third-party products are so expensive. Having that would be a wonderful improvement.

It's super. It's solid. Never goes down. For me as a user of it, it's solid.

We have a lot of legacy systems and we're implementing new systems and applications to take over the old things. We're an insurance company so we have claims, and policies, and AP, and financials, and payroll. Old systems get old, and as we're implementing new systems, AppWorks or Automic now, just fits. It's just the best there is, so, it was a no-brainer. 

We had such success with AppWorks. And then we went to this big RFI to figure out what we were going to change to because we didn't want to upgrade AppWorks anymore. But the success that we had with AppWorks - and then when Automic bought it - it was like a no-brainer. We would just go with them.

It was good. We had customer support who came onsite to install it and to train everybody and I was right there. It's mainly a product for our department, and then, as an administrator, we assign everybody, all the users and train them.

The whole thing is just a great product. We're really happy with it. 

In terms of selecting a vendor, I'm not the one who does that but they go through a pretty extensive process of looking at the cost, the reputation. I would think it would be a combination of things including reviews. Management takes care of that stuff.

Do your homework. Do your research. The product we have is the best. I don't know what you can afford or how big your company is, and what your needs are. It might not fit into every company, so do your research.

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.

We are a system integrator and Automic is one of the workload automation products that we implement for our clients.

This tool provides a great versatility of options for effective digital business automation. Integration with different platforms, ERP systems, business application, microservices, big data.

We are supporting multiple customers and their environments. Some of the most common uses are : SAP, SAP BW, Avaloq, FileTransfers, FTP/SFTP, Datastage, Informatica

It has its own scripting language which allows you to be even more flexible with the objects and create your own unique environment. You can easily have a single object with smartly defined parameters (variables) and reuse that object in many different workflows, passing different values to achieve different purposes. 

The vendor support is really bad and should be improved. The engineers taking our vendor tickets are not knowledgeble enough of the product and occasionally not helpful at all. Tickets usally are bouncing back and forth with very little helpful information or investigation from their side for a issue we are experiencing/reporting.

I have been working with Automic Workload Automation for at least five years.

This is a stable product and we plan on continuing to use it in the future.

Automic Workload Automation is scalable, although it can improve on the database side. When it comes to workload automation tools, the database is always at the back of the list.

My team has approximately 25 people in it, and we have teams in America and Germany as well.

The technical support is slow, and the people that take the cases are not really familiar with the product. Most of their answers are simply "Did you check the official documentation? Did you check the knowledge base articles?"

If we are at the point that we are asking for support, most times, we would have already checked everything place that we can.

Basically, they should be faster and more knowledgeable.

In our team, we are using four workload automation tools including Automic, Control-M, Autosys, and TWS/IWS. We are supporting all of them but I concentrate on Automic because it's the one that I like the most.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is pretty easy to install this product anywhere, regardless of whether it is an on-premises or cloud-based deployment. Usually, deployment takes four hours at the most.

I have done the deployment several times, myself.

This is a good product and I can recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The primary use case is for automation in the area of SAP, as a specific solution in time management and access control systems. We are providing for this for any of our customers who use the automation engine. It is performing well.

The product has benefited our organization. It saves time and manpower.

Process automation.

The user interface has room for improvement.

I would like to see the event engine in the next release.

It is a stable product.

It has a normal scale for working with the tool.

We use support when we make release changes. Technical support has been good to work with. They have been easier to reach now than in the past.

We did not have a previous solution, just something we built in-house. We have been using this solution for 20 years.

The initial setup was easy. We have used it for 20 years, so we set it up in a special way. We were installation number 30 for this product. We have been working with it for a long time.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: multi-platform usability.