Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

BMC Compuware ISPW vs Rocket ChangeMan ZMF (formerly a Micro Focus product) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

BMC Compuware ISPW
Ranking in Software Configuration Management
2nd
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Rocket ChangeMan ZMF (forme...
Ranking in Software Configuration Management
6th
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Software Configuration Management category, the mindshare of BMC Compuware ISPW is 29.5%, up from 28.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Rocket ChangeMan ZMF (formerly a Micro Focus product) is 7.0%, up from 6.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Software Configuration Management
 

Featured Reviews

BM
Tracks code during the change process so that more than one group could have code checked out for change. ISPW provides this tracking info real time helping move toward a more Agile environment.
One of the features that the developers like is that they can retrieve what they need with ISPW. They don't have to go through a process or request something be done by another team. They can get the programs they need, compile them, retrieve the JCL and alter the JCL if they need to, and put these programs wherever they need to go for their testing. They can promote all the way through to the production step. I know that might make a lot of companies nervous when we talk about the fact that developers can promote to production. What that means is the developers promote the code to the point of being ready to be released into production. The release step is still controlled using your current approval process. This gives the development staff a lot more control over what they're doing, and it dovetails nicely into an Agile process. ISPW is really great at giving the developers access to all of the components all the way through the process. The control of actually putting code into production is more about the "when" and not the "how." In most companies, your change-control coordinators or business analysts, or managers that release code into production environment, will still do that last step. That's all controllable and secure at different levels. But it really gives the development staff a way to get everything where it needs to be, staged-up and ready to be released so that they can go work on something else. And the management of that movement into production is still maintained through whatever level you choose.
reviewer1441137 - PeerSpot reviewer
It simplifies things and has tight security but needs better technical support and a few enhancements
As such, there's nothing wrong with the product. It is great, but there are small things that can be better to make it much more friendly. The way you navigate through fields can be improved. If I'm going to stage a component over something that exists and that I've created in another library, and I want to pull it in and write it over what I've got there in my package, I've got to type in that data set name every time. That can be aggravating. It is not a big deal. The way things are sorted can also be improved. If you're doing a delete of a bunch of components, you can't sort those out by type or anything. Some things are just standard, and you can't look at them in a way that would be helpful.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It does our CICS NEWCOPYs and our Db2 binds for us, whereas before, that was a manual process. It takes a lot of the workload off of the operations folks and off the DBAs."
"I think the most valuable features are code management, code deployment, and code generation. The fact that those three features are included makes BMC Compuware ISPW a robust product. If one of those features was missing, it would be less robust and less interesting. But because it has those three features, it is a very good solution for code development and management."
"One of the features that the developers like is that they can retrieve what they need with the tool. They don't have to go through some process or request something be done by another team. They can get the programs they need, compile them, retrieve the JCL and alter the JCL if they need to, and put these programs wherever they need to go for their testing."
"We had parallel development before, but the way ISPW implements it is better. It has more control and oversight of the process, whereas before, it was like the Wild West. Everybody could have their own package with their own version of the component in it... ISPW is constantly aware of it. It notifies when someone else is using or has a different version of that component."
"The visual ability to see potential downstream impacts to changes being made assists our developers in understanding the impact associated with their change."
"Scalability is great. It has absolutely met every need for us so far. We do have some concurrent development paths and we're able to flexibly assign variables. At the same time, our skeletons assemble where we want them to, so the scalability is very good."
"We audit once a year for our ChangeMan access, accurate financial programs, and all of that. Auditors really love ChangeMan for how easy it is to get through and how tight the security is on it. Our internal auditors, external auditors, and SOX editors love this solution. We're in the healthcare business, so HIPAA regulations and all such things are a big deal, and this makes all that really simple."
 

Cons

"When you're setting up the parameters for how ISPW will work in your shop, there are a lot of questions that have to be answered... BMC Compuware should have more in-depth explanations about what the choices in each question mean. If you pick A, what does that mean has to happen? What does that impact? If you pick B, what does that mean? What does that impact?"
"One thing I would really like to see some improvement on is the promotion diagnostic messages. It invokes utilities "under the covers" to copy components, and it does not echo back any of the error messages from those utilities."
"There are some features that are not well documented, so documentation could use a little help, on things like setting up deployment and which structures in the database correspond to which tables."
"Better discussions to identify inventory prior to the start of any migration would be helpful for potential clients that have applications with code that is not modified often."
"The solution could be improved by being better integrated with the open world. In the next release, I would like to have the ability to work in an open environment whilst remaining integrated with the legacy environment."
"I would like to see them enable parallel development for online. It's available now for batch stuff on the mainframe. Jenkins, IBM, and Rocket all supposedly already have safe and workable version of Git for the mainframe. With that in mind, we need to know where our feature is."
"As such, there's nothing wrong with the product. It is great, but there are small things that can be better to make it much more friendly. The way you navigate through fields can be improved. If I'm going to stage a component over something that exists and that I've created in another library, and I want to pull it in and write it over what I've got there in my package, I've got to type in that data set name every time. That can be aggravating. It is not a big deal. The way things are sorted can also be improved. If you're doing a delete of a bunch of components, you can't sort those out by type or anything. Some things are just standard, and you can't look at them in a way that would be helpful."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price point is great."
"I like the seat-based licensing much more than MSU-based licensing, and that the cost has been competitive."
"It's on a yearly basis. I am not aware of any additional costs."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Configuration Management solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
37%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
32%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Insurance Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BMC Compuware ISPW?
I think the most valuable features are code management, code deployment, and code generation. The fact that those three features are included makes BMC Compuware ISPW a robust product. If one of th...
What needs improvement with BMC Compuware ISPW?
The solution could be improved by being better integrated with the open world. In the next release, I would like to have the ability to work in an open environment whilst remaining integrated with ...
What is your primary use case for BMC Compuware ISPW?
Our primary use case is managing and deploying code. We also build outputs from the code.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
Open Text, Micro Focus ChangeMan ZMF
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

mBank, Standard Bank
SPTS Technologies, Generali France, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (BBH), Kutxa-Vital-Banco Madrid, Space and Naval Warfare Information Technology Center (SPAWAR ITC)
Find out what your peers are saying about BMC Compuware ISPW vs. Rocket ChangeMan ZMF (formerly a Micro Focus product) and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.