Endevor Reviews

• Version tracking
• Footprinting
• ACM
• Admin tools (build SCL)

Time-submitted packages allow for silent, off-hours installs into production.

I find the ISPF interface to be lacking. It seems like you have to navigate to a lot of different screens to work with the same element.

I have used this solution for 20+ years.

We did not have stability issues.

We did not have scalability issues.

On a scale of 1-10, I would say technical support is a 7. First-level of support often comes back with answers that are obviously incorrect or not relevant. Luckily, we don't have many issues.

We had Changeman on one of our mainframes. We migrated to Endevor for the cost savings and also for consistency in our SCM. Endevor was our choice between the two.

I find setup very straightforward. The biggest challenge we had when converting was replicating the compile options. The load module analyzer only looks at link options. It would be nice if it also looked at compile options.

I'm not involved with pricing or licensing.

We looked at Changeman.

I think it's the best SCM I've used and would definitely recommend it.

• Resilience capacity for mainframe applications
• Self-installation z/OS workflow
• Informative content to save a rich source of events, such as a movie of the real evolution of our IS

For any organization to succeed in implementing this software is dependent upon the resilience of staff in the face of frequent organizational changes of the information system and in their work. It can manage the continuous-flow deliveries or cascade deliveries.

Globally this product manages back end process powered by z/OS. The interface could be improved in terms of the MMI/HMI. For example, with monitoring, the graphic view of the evolution of the IS.

Conceptually this system is based on a centralized vision. An improvement axis should exist to help you open your system and to decentralizing it. Converge a unified HMI for, and propose, more analyses and opportunities for the graphical analysis of the content of data included in repositories.

We've had issues with the stability of the genotype, the repository integrity.

It's OK, but it could be better with an incremental approach.

They are serious and display empathy.

It's complex because it depends upon your development architecture. Also, it's reached the limits of automation and freedom given to end users.

You need to think why you want to use an application configuration management system and if it matches with your development objectives.

We use the product as a source manager and program manager. It helps in controlling the mainframe code and performing data migrations.

Endevor is easy to use.

The product’s implementation process is complicated and restrictive. It is difficult to find file programs and use a different tool for the setup as the compilation process is all locked up, at least in our implementation. We might switch to MySQL for the same reason.

We have been using Endevor for ten years. We use the latest version.

The product is stable, but it is not static as we are developing software.

We have 100 Endevor users in our organization. It is a very scalable product.

I use SCLM as well.

The initial setup process is complex with complicated programs. We have a primary technical executive and two support executives to handle the implementation.

We implement the product with the help of third-party vendors and our in-house staff.

The product is expensive.

I rate Endevor a seven out of ten. I wouldn’t recommend it to others. It could have better pricing and support strategies.

We use it to migrate our software from the different environments of development and QA, and then QA to production.

It performs pretty well. I like it.

It's good because a lot of time you can keep the history tracking, so I can go back and I can see what the software looked like before and after, what was changed and what was moved.

It's the audit-level tracking. If something has gone wrong I can go back and figure out what happened, who did it.

Being able to go back through and see the history of changes that were migrated, who got migrated. And being able to see data migration has occurred.

Some of the things that we have talked about are trying to move towards Agile, and trying to map back. If I'm migrating once in a code that maybe solves multiple projects, or multiple user stories, or features. Being able to try and do that one-to-many; because right now we're just doing one-to-one.

If it were able to help us map back that code to basically what initially was running, that would help, because sometimes it can be multiples, I can install one release of a product that may have multiple originating.

It seems to be pretty stable.

It seems to be scalable. I don't know that we've tested any limits on it, but it appears to be.

It's been so long that I don't know what the previous solution was, but the switch was because we were trying to get it all consolidated, because we were in multiple places.

It was complex just from a matter of getting everything set up initially and making sure all our parameters were set properly. So it was about us getting everything there the first time. Because when you've got code everywhere, and you're trying to get it in one place, it can sometimes be a challenge just to find it all and get it there.

The most important criteria in selecting a vendor are

• stability of the product
• the company.

We like to hear from other customers that have used it. What were your experiences with it? The software, the vendor not being responsive.

I would rate it a solid eight out of 10, because it is stable, it serves the need that we have now. However, I don't know if it's serving where we are going with the Agile.

It seems to be a solid company, they're good and responsive. It's just a matter of making sure you know where all your software resides today, to get it all there.

We use it to manage our source, make sure everything is clean, and nobody puts anything in the production that does not belong. 

Flexibility.

It performs fine. We have not had any real glitches for the product. 

It is already there. We have not really implemented it. We just have to get it to Managed API source.

It is stable. We do not have any issues with it. It is just complex because it is a tool set. It is not a plug and play kind of product at all. 

No issues with it. It covers our base; no problem. 

Good. They provide answers and solutions. The team member will really get more detailed on the technical end of it and he has not had any issues with getting support.

I was involved in the initial setup. It was complex. It is a toolbox, so you have got to design it to do what you want to get done, so it was complex. 

I was not part of the decision-making process. 

I don't know if there are competitors. I can't comment on how it compares.

This solution works. You can definitely make it work. 

Source code management. It works well.

I do not think our organization could go without it.

Source code management.

It is very stable. We had issues early on (twenty-something years ago), but not now.

We can make it do pretty much whatever we want, depending on just how complicated we want it to be. It will do a lot of things if we tell it to.

It is not built that way. It has to be told. It is pretty flexible.

Technical support is always good, and they are getting better.

I was not part of the initial setup. I have gone through several releases of the software, though. Those were pretty straightforward.

I would definitely tell anyone looking for this type of solution to pursue Endevor.

• Adaptable to respond to all customer needs: It is configuration management software. It retains all the components of a computer system. The entire application fabrication process is described in Endevor. It specifically defines all environments: testing environment, pre-production and production. The components follow the manufacturing process that are to be kept in the production reference.
• History and components of application protection

• Traceability and the history of changes in applications
• Monitoring and consistency in the application development process, from development to production implementation
• The ease of the backspace

This software is made to keep the components' and change history. There is no concept of application and version management of these applications. It is in this area that it could be improved.

I have used this solution since 1997 in several companies with mainframes (banking, insurance, and pension funds).

There were malfunctions in earlier versions. The software has been stable in recent years.

Technical support is correct.

We did not previously use a different solution.

Implementation requires a good level of knowledge and expertise.

The license price is high, so big companies with a large information system can have this software.

I only know of three types of software that meet our needs. Endevor is the most widespread in France. LCM is not available in France.

It is a very good choice, but it requires a good level of knowledge to implement. Call on experienced people to implement it.

We use CA Endevor Software Change Manager in order to control the lifecycle of the applications for mainframes.

The management and information CA Endevor Software Change Manager provides is very useful

There should be better integration between CA Endevor Software Change Manager and Zowe.

I have been using CA Endevor Software Change Manager for approximately 20 years.

CA Endevor Software Change Manager is stable.

The technical support from CA Endevor Software Change Manager is helpful.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate CA Endevor Software Change Manager a ten out of ten.