IBM Workload Automation Reviews

The whole product is valuable because it is a tool for batch automation.

There should be more custom documentation, specifically around Java APIs. There should also be more training.

In terms of features, we are currently using only 50% of its features. We don't use all features that are available, but there is always room for improvement in all of the tools. 

I have been using this solution for 15 years.

It is very stable.

It is extremely scalable. We run more than 80,000 jobs a day across multiple platforms.

Their technical support is fine. We have a contract with them to assist us.

It is simple to install.

It is about one-third of the cost of a controller.

I would rate IBM Workload Automation a seven out of ten.

The FTA agents feature is most beneficial, as it easily resolves local dependencies on the workstation, even when there is a network disconnect between the MDM and FTA.

I belong to a part of the delivery module in our organization. We implement TWS in the customer’s environment. It has definitely improved many different processes in our organization.

There is need to add any type of utility which can convert workload definitions of other syntax to the TWS syntax, during workload migration and conversions. Currently, there is no utility as such with TWS.

For example, there could be one scenario, where the customer wants to switch from the existing scheduling tool to TWS. Every tool has its very own syntax for defining workload definitions.

During migration project activities, it gets very difficult for converting the existing workload syntax to TWS syntax. We need to create our own scripts or different methods, that helps us in achieving this task.

If I remember correctly, the BMC Control-M tool does have such utility of converting any workload definition syntax to Control-M based workload definition syntax, i.e., upto a certain extent. Hence, this is one area where TWS can be improved.

I have been using this solution for more than a year now.

I have not had any stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

I’ve not had such a good experience with the technical support. At times, I have seen long delays in getting answers/responses.

I started out with implementing the TWS solution only.

Initially, it was complex; during implementation, I faced many challenges.

For licensing, you should proceed with the monthly job executions. Earlier, it also used to have the PVU (Processor Value Unit) license model as well. I am not sure, if this is still there.

Get clarity from IBM and accordingly proceed, depending upon the requirement.

TWS is very much stable on the Linux platform but this doesn’t mean that it can’t go well with Windows. Looking at the OS maintenance and other patching activities, it is better to go with Linux.

Scalability is not an issue with TWS. Make sure you have all the pre-requisites met before implementing it. It will work all fine.

• Valuable Features:
• Time zones: As we are a global company, scheduling jobs in different time zone is mandatory (especially due to DST changes).
• Web interface: Easy access for end users.- CLI: Even more automation is possible than by using the standard features.
• User/group-based roles for access segregation
• AD integration: To use the same user repository

This product has increased the level of automation with no / minimum downtime and predictable scheduling.

The web interface (TDWC) is a bit slow.

I personally got in touch with it in 2003 (as soon as I was employed).

There were some stability issues with older versions we used. There have not been any on the current one (8.6.02) since we started using it, for ~3+ years.

We encountered scalability issues. There are some parameters that need to be tuned once you reach a certain level, and it is not clearly stated / explained in the product documentation.

Technical support is 4/10.

Initial setup was a bit complex, as we did it without any consultant and the coding is not perfect or the same for different platforms (i.e. Windows, different Linux flavors, Solaris, AIX, etc.).

It is expensive, but reliable (in short, you GET what you pay for).

If cost is not an issue, I definitely recommend it.

I  used IBM Workload Automation within the past 12 months

The support from Cisco is very good. I was with them as a company for 40 years.

The configuration of IBM Workload Automation has some challenges. We have a difficult time customizing it, but it is similar to other solutions. However, it is easy to set up.

I would advise others to push their marketing representatives to give a simplified licensing solution, or if you outsource, to an IT vendor, have them deal with the complexities of the process.

I rate IBM Workload Automation an eight out of ten.

The API is a valuable feature as it allowed us to integrate the inventory, change and ticketing systems to fully automate most of the monitoring processes for new devices, decommissioned devices and during approved changes.

The new servers automatically get monitored with the alerts going to the server administrator or application developers, without the need for someone to submit a request.

The alerts automatically go to a command center, when a server is classified as production in the inventory system. The alerts get automatically suppressed during an approved change.

A lot of the automation that we added to the product should come built into it, so that every customer doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. This will eliminate the need for us to modify our code, in order to make it compatible with each future release.

Below are examples of automation that we developed which should be built into the product:

• Integration with the inventory system, so that alerts go to the proper teams. For example, alerts for servers classified as development would go to the apps support team or alerts for servers classified as production would go to the monitoring center. Also, alerts would stop when a server is marked as decommissioned.

• Integration with the change management system so that alerts would be suppressed during the change window for approved changes. Thus, alerts would begin for approved changes adding new servers.

I have used this solution for five years.

There were some stability issues but we lit a fire under IBM's feet and they corrected them.

There were no scalability issues; we managed to deploy over 85,000 server with no issues.

The level of technical support is top notch. If the support team can't fix an issue, they don't hesitate to engage the product development team.

Initially, we were using a home-grown product that didn't scale as well and had no ability for cross-product automation.

The setup was very complex and required on-site support, mostly due to the cross-product automation that we implemented.

Talk to your IBM sales representative to see what they can offer you.

We did not evaluate other solutions.

Talk to other customers using this product, who are similar in size and configuration, so as to get feedback, ideas and what to watch out for.

The introduction of the TDWC (Tivoli Dynamic Workload Console) was nice to have, preventing additional code installs for the JSC.

It gives end users the ability to monitor their jobs/workflows in real time, which helps with MTR when they experience issues.

When deleting jobs from the database that have interdependencies within other job streams, there is no warning about those dependencies, which could cause other job streams to have issues later on.

We starting using it back when it was named Maestro 5.X.

I did not encounter any stability issues. It’s been a very stable and reliable product.

We have not had any scalability issues.

I rate technical support 9.5/10. I have not opened any cases over the past 1.5 years. They have always been very supportive and helpful in the past.

Initial setup was fairly straightforward. However, configuring and setting up the TDWC was somewhat of a challenge; we had to consult with Level 3 support several times to get things working properly.

Consult with a third-party vendor to assist with price discounts.

I did not evaluate other products before choosing this one. However, they are asking us to look at other solutions, due to cost for licensing the TWS product.

I would have to recommend installing the TWS Master/Backup Masters on a Linux platform, not Windows.

Automation capabilities with dependencies, long-term plan and modifying current plan, and ease of use are the product's most valuable features to me.

When there is a holiday or emergency closing, we query the Long-Term Plan to identify what will or will not be running during the closure. Application owners review and sign off of the plan, making everyone aware of the scheduled jobs for that time frame.

We are using an outdated version. We had issues with the file dependencies. We are uncertain if it was due to application setup or the product itself.

I have used this solution for 6.5 years.

This has been a dependable product for us.

We did not encounter any scalability issues.

We have not utilized technical support in six years.

As with any new application/utility, make sure you have good training; if possible, request a trial version to become familiar with product; and ensure it meets your needs.

Real-time database updating: With other schedulers, you have to upload and download changes. Updating in real-time is less time consuming. You do not have to turn the job on; you can simply leave it off the schedule if it is not needed until a certain date, and you can give it a first-run date. In Control-M, there are a lot of extra steps (uploading or downloading to the database). You have to repeat those steps for turning the job off or on.

I like the layout of Tivoli, it almost functions like an Excel sheet. I like the "tree" to the side and also you can set up different views. If I only have to monitor certain applications, it makes that easier. I also like the filters and views within the scheduling console.

Setting an alternate plan is a good tool when you would like to go to a previous day to see how long a job took to process. I use that a lot.

I wish I had more training. I'm kind of on my own, we are one person per shift right now. I have the user guides that came with the product and wish I had more time to read through. Right now, I use them if I have issues. Because I "get it" when it comes to scheduling (I've been doing it since 1999), I didn't need too much training to pick it up.

Right-clicking options such as reruns and also dependencies come in handy. (I do wish it had the "why" option as I mention below.) But it isn't difficult to find why a job is not running.

Maybe a better way to see what a job is waiting on. (Control-M has a "why" function that would be good here). With Tivoli, you have to investigate for what the job is waiting for, i.e., files, prompts, predecessors.

I have been using it for 1.5 years.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

I have not used technical support.

It is very good scheduling software.