We have a lot of projects with many companies, mostly in México.
There are two main companies in the retail sector. The clients use this solution for their process orchestration.
We have a lot of projects with many companies, mostly in México.
There are two main companies in the retail sector. The clients use this solution for their process orchestration.
The solution has the power to reduce resources, which is good for business. It is constantly updated to remain compatible with new technologies such as Amazon, Azure, and Google Cloud. It's very easy to take advantage of the compatibilities.
Some companies have found Control-M a very cost solution, and they thing it’s not worth the investment.
My recommendation is that they can evaluate some points like Control-M is a leader in EMA Analysis (similar to Gartner Studio), and see the potential of Control-M and the immediate benefits that it can have to the Business.
It’s my understanding that BMC will be releasing Control-M Saas, which will have a new commercial schema, more accesible than the On-Premise schema.
I've used the solution within the last 12 years.
The solution is quite stable. It's a reliable product. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.
The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, they can do so rather easily.
Typically, our clients are large-scale enterprises.
The technical support on offer is very good. It's from BMC. The customers can
open a ticket and be sure that they will have excellent technical support. We're
satisfied with the level of service provided.
The initial setup isn't too difficult. It's quite straightforward. We haven't had issues with the implementations that We have done with our clients. The implementation is pretty fast. It depends on the size of the infrastructure, however, it could be implemented between one to three months. It happens very fast if you compare it to other solutions.
A certified software consultant will help with the implementation process.
The solution offers good value for money.
We're BMC partners. We have a business relationship with the solution. While we typically handle on-premises deployments, we also deal with the cloud.
I would recommend the solution. My recommendation is based on the stability, the constant evolution, and the capabilities of the integration with other software. The implementation is easy. It's easy to use and easy to implement then it's worth the expenditure.
Overall, I would rate the solution ten out of ten. We've been very happy with it.
Workload Manager.
Using it to moving large amounts of data.
Scalability.
12 years.
No issues with stability.
Yes, it is not currently suited well for the Cloud.
10 out of 10.
Very simple to install.
Many companies are using Control-M in Mexico, two main companies from the retail sector have been using Control-M for around 15 years for all the administration of their processes.
It has been helpful in reducing costs and resources.
Its compatibility with the new technologies and platforms, like the Google Cloud or Amazon, is the most valuable. Its console allows us to view the duration and execution of a process. It is also very easy to use and easy to implement.
Some companies have found Control-M a very costly solution, and they think it’s not worth the investment. My recommendation is that they can evaluate some points like Control-M is a leader in EMA Analysis (similar to Gartner Studio), and see the potential of Control-M and the immediate benefits that it can have to the Business. It’s my understanding that BMC will be releasing Control-M Saas, which will have a new commercial schema, more accessible than the On-Premise schema.
It is very stable.
It is very scalable. All our clients are big companies.
Their technical support is very good. We need to create tickets, and their response time is good.
Its implementation is pretty fast and easy. The duration depends on the size of the infrastructure. It could be implemented between one to three months.
I would recommend this solution. It has good stability and integration capabilities. It is also easy to use and easy to implement.
I would rate Control-M a ten out of ten.
It provides a single point of control for the entire organization’s batch processing, helping to shorten the batch processing window and achieve a “manage by exception” operation environment. At my current organization, our batch processing requirement is too technically diversified and has to be supported 24/7. With Control-M, we are able to handle the customer demand and execute 30k-plus jobs through a single window.
I have been using the solution for 10 years, including earlier versions.
I have encountered very few stability issues; it’s highly stable.
Scalability is good.
I find technical support to be knowledgeable and willing to provide assistance for any and all queries.
I did not previously use a different solution at my current organization. However, I have experience working CA Autosys.
The installation is panel-driven and can be used by a relatively inexperienced technician to install it successfully.
It’s well suited for anywhere and anyone, but it comes with a cost; it is quite pricey.
Before choosing this product, I did not evaluate other options.
Control-M is very stable. It is rare to have any issues with the application. Nonetheless, the bigger the workload, the more a tool like Control-M is needed or else it’s too pricey.
These make automation and scheduling troubleshooting easier.
Well, I am no longer with that company, but it gave us the tools to see the big picture and work toward more tightly integrating processes that were unnecessarily dependent on each other.
It allowed us to automate responses and or trigger different processes based on different outcomes of the same job or process.
Version 8 introduced a whole new set of features that required more processing power, creating what I call "dead weights" that, if not interpreted in the right way, can cause duplication of processes. I am pretty confident that, knowing their track record, the issue was addressed in later revisions.
I used it for 15-plus years.
I did not encounter any stability issues. The "dead weights" that I referred to above were in the scheduling development side of the product and did not affect the live processes.
I did not encounter any scalability issues.
Technical support was very good, 8/10.
I had a minor issue with their online interface for opening problem tickets. Their website at the time was horrible. (I hope it has been fixed.) I did let them know it would take you in circles without ever actually opening the ticket. This to the point that you had to eventually call and wait for someone to call you back so that the ticket was established. Then, you would send all the doc explaining the issue. Then, they would ask you to provide a ton of stuff, such as logs. Then, once you sent them that, they would tell you that it was an automated response and that they really did not need all that. In their defense, this only happen occasionally; otherwise I would have given them a 4 out of 10.
I personally did have experience with a few different scheduling packages, but none came close to providing the overall enterprise scale of Control-M.
I did not switch, the switch was on when I joined the company.
While I was not involved in its original implementation from scratch, I did arrive in the early stages and once I had a grip on the functionality and its tools, it was fairly easy. I am sure the installation and first implementation came with challenges.
That part can be tricky as I did not handle it. I do know that it may be expensive in the beginning, but, once you have it implemented and use it to its full or close to its full potential, it will save money in the long run.
I was not involved in the process, but the move was from CA7, and I know that ESP, Jobtrac, and Zeke among others were considered.
Go for it.
We rely on Control-M in our production environment. The automated notification in a case of an error has helped us a lot in reducing downtime and erasing errors.
Support for Z/OS output.
The company has used Control-M since the late 90s.
I did not encounter any issues with deployment.
The GUI had some problems in the early stages, but those seemed to have been solved.
I did not encounter any issues with scalability.
I would give customer service a rating of 8/10. They are very good.
Technical Support:I would give technical support a rating of 8/10. They are very good.
We did not use a previous solution.
The setup was straightforward.
We implemented via a vendor team and in-house. The vendor teams we had were excellent.
Ask for packages and bundles, so you might get more plugins for one price.
We did not evaluate any other options.
Relatively small setup for ETL jobs only. We do not use Control-M for enterprise-wide scheduling and automation.
The user interface is very easy to navigate.
The batch team is now able to run an average of 1,500 jobs per day with incidents automatically created and routed to the correct team if a job fails or has an error.
The process to apply patches and upgrades is cumbersome. It feels like there could be a simpler or more streamlined way to apply patches.
We have been using Control-M for almost a year.
The deployment went smoothly.
We are having issues with failover working correctly but we are working with BMC Support.
No.
Customer service tries to be helpful. They tend to shy away from many tasks that BMC feels falls into "Customizations". Anything that differs from the OOB is hard to get help with.
Technical Support:Most of the technicians seem to be highly capable.
The previous solution was no longer supported.
We used BMC for the implementation.
ROI is unclear at this time as the software has been in use less than a year.
Can you identify features in the software that make its high cost worth the expense?