Control-M Reviews

We have several SAP systems such as IBP, S4HANA, SolMan, etc. By implementing Helix Control-M, we wanted a tool that monitors different activities on these platforms and launches jobs.

Each company has a different number of jobs. We have thousands of jobs, but we have selected the most critical jobs of the company that normally run in the early morning. We wanted a platform that allows us to launch the job, for example, from point A until it finishes, and then there is also the possibility of being able to launch another job from another tool, which could be a SaaS tool, such as IBP so that several jobs can be executed and finished in parallel. If there is a failure in the system, we send an email, and for much more important things, generate a ticket in a tool called SolMan so that the support team can attend to the case that has arisen due to the failure of a job.

All those human errors that we were facing did not occur again. All these processes are critical for the company. We have implemented 22 processes. One of the processes starts at eleven at night. The process runs in S4HANA. It sends data to IBP, and IBP makes an optimizer and then it becomes a request that specifies the national transfers of the products that are going to be distributed. In other words, these are requests that indicate how many products should be sent from one point to another point for the customer at a national level. At six in the morning, another team, which is the distribution team, waits for this request to assemble the trucks and get them ready to leave. If they do not have this request, the trucks will remain stationary. By having the trucks stopped, there is no distribution, so there can be a loss of sales. There can be a drop in stock. You accumulate inventory in the warehouse because the plant continues producing, but where are you going to put the new products? There are a series of consequences that can cause the process to fail because we did not have immediate action to create that request. This tool has helped us positively impact the company's processes. We could get its benefits immediately after the implementation.

Helix Control-M’s ability to build, schedule, manage, and monitor application and data workflows in production is good. When we went live and throughout the first stage of the project, I thought it was great because we received full support. Now that we have the tool live, I have presented more cases, and I feel that they are a little slower. I have to try harder to get their attention.

Helix Control-M has affected our ability to orchestrate data pipelines in production. It has been a great benefit. Little by little, users' trust is increasing. When there is just one small failure, they usually stop believing in the tool. With a more solid tool like this, we have fewer errors, which means more trust of the users.

Helix Control-M has given our company’s business users visibility and control over their jobs and freed up IT personnel for other tasks. It has freed us up a lot because previously, IT used to coordinate meetings with the company that gave us the manual service. We had to meet and discuss failures and issues, but we no longer have these meetings because that third-party company is no longer there. We replaced them with this solution, and it has freed up a few hours. Being able to free up the company's IT team is important because we have so many issues to deal with. Nowadays, technology and innovation are in full swing, and users are constantly asking for new things, so the more we focus on those things, the better.

Helix Control-M has affected collaboration between IT and our business users. Previously, our business users only complained about process failures, and now they themselves can reprogram. Before Helix Control-M, we had to send emails with the reprogramming. Despite that, they did not do what we had specified in the email, so it was all a waste of time. We wasted time with the business, and we wasted time meeting with this company. In the end, they did not do what we had told them. Nowadays, the user interacts directly with the tool because they have access. They themselves can reprogram those processes. There is less need to have a meeting, and there is also a reduction in the email replies and forwards. We have reduced everything. They directly interact with the tool to launch and relaunch.

First of all, the shift from manual to automation has been valuable. We have a tool that can automate.

The second valuable feature is that there have been many benefits, which we have been utilizing little by little.

The third valuable feature is that there is a good support team. They have solved things that other companies have not done. When it comes to IBP, because it is SaaS, it was not easy for our team, but we received good support. At first, there were also issues regarding the functionality of SolMan. We saw that it was not going to work, so we did not go live with that, but they told us that there was going to be a new version where the ticket would be generated almost automatically. Because they were releasing a technical issue that would allow us to generate a job automatically and generate a ticket in a simpler way, we waited for that upgrade to be released, and it indeed was like that. Such continuous support is very valuable because it is not a tool that does not progress. They are constantly releasing things and allowing it to grow and cover more functionalities.

There can be an improvement in the area of finance.

I contacted the BMC team here in Lima and mentioned the things that can be improved. For example, S4HANA jobs are something with which BMC has already worked in several companies. Whenever I pull an S4HANA job to the Helix Control-M tool, it pulls it naturally with all the steps. A job can have several steps, and in this case, it is very easy to control the steps taken. However, in the case of the SaaS IBP tool, it can pull the job but cannot identify the steps. So, when I want to take an action in a step, I have to split the job. We are having to work longer because we have to split the jobs from, for example, 52 steps to 12, depending on where I want it to have an action. We would like the tool to be able to identify the steps so that we are not continually splitting them as it generates more executions for me.

The other improvement is that in, for example, S4HANA jobs, when the job fails, you have the status of the job. It recognizes them perfectly. In the case of IBP, it also has status but at a more minimal level. Sometimes the step fails, but the job does not fail. It ends with an error in a step without identifying it for me.

Another thing that we have asked to improve is that Helix Control-M can be integrated with more tools such as Odoo. Odoo is a tool for all these companies that are not with SAP. They use it as a small ERP to generate their sales. Odoo integration will help us receive inventory reports.

The communication and details related to the upgrades that are going to be happening also need improvement.

The implementation began in 2021 and went live in February 2022.

It is a powerful, stable tool.

I have had a very good impression. I have been to the events where BMC shows its new products. I see that there are more things that are going to help a lot. We will be able to get much more out of it.

Alicorp is at several locations and in several countries. These processes have only been launched here in Lima, Peru. They have been divided into the demand planning, distribution, production, and supply areas by the planning team, but it is only done by a team here in Lima. The result is at the national level, but the configuration made in the system is only done in Lima, Peru. Later, we will surely also move internationally.

We started with a small planning team that is gaining confidence in the tool, and the next stage is to cover more areas of the business because currently, it is a small group with a small number of processes being executed. The idea is to make a massive change in the other areas as well, such as the finance department, and then the analytics department. This requires us to look at this implementation from various angles, so we can optimize the dissemination and execute it massively. Before taking that step, we wanted to be in a solid position with the team that is working on Helix Control-M. We wanted to have confidence in what the tool does, and now that we reached that step, the next step is greater use.

Our first-level support is with the GrupoCONTEXT team. They have the knowledge for all cases. There have only been 2 or 3 times where they did not know about the issue and involved BMC. There have only been 3 complex events. There have not been more complex issues. Normally, there are problems when maintenance and upgrades are carried out because sometimes the system changes.

Positive

We previously executed this process manually. It was a third-party company that had 9 people in the early hours. They manually launched one job and then relaunched the other according to a document that we gave them. The document said what things should be done depending on the case that arose. The problem was that there was a lot of shift rotation. For example, if one job ended at 2:00 a.m., in theory, the other should start at 2:01 a.m., but it started at 2:10 or 2:20 a.m. It took 20 to 30 minutes. This time was wasted because the person was not there all the time monitoring. They either made a mistake in launching another job that was not the one we had indicated, or they simply did not launch, which was much worse. So, because of the shift rotation of people, since they were early morning jobs, we constantly had those problems. We had a loss of time, no precision, and a lot of human error.

I was involved in the process of evaluation and implementation, and now, I am also involved in monitoring the development.

Its implementation is among the simplest I have done. SAP tools are more complex. Helix Control-M was live within a short time. We configured it in 2-3 days. We tested it one day, and the next day, it could go live with a process right away.

Our implementation strategy was to divide the implementation into stages. We did it by area and configured the jobs. That was it. We had workshops to understand what the user wanted, and then we did configuration in the test environment to see that what they requested is actually what is being done and executed in that environment. We then moved that to production, so for each user group, we followed: demand, distribution, supply, and production. It was super simple.

In terms of maintenance, from time to time, they notify us that there are upgrades. We receive notifications about agent upgrades, tool upgrades, and some system maintenance. Because it is a SaaS, they tell us everything. We coordinate internally so that if there is a process that is running at that moment, that program is executed manually.

For the server and agent part, we have outsourced the maintenance to the CJG company. They are in charge of doing that maintenance. On the operations side, there is a person in charge. Every time something happens, he is in charge of the event.

For the integration, we received assistance from GrupoCONTEXT. They were in charge of doing all the configuration and programming.

From GrupoCONTEXT, there were two people with constant support from BMC. On our side, there was an architect and a few other people. All the suppliers were contacted so that they were present during configurations, integrations, and testing.

We have seen an ROI. In theory, this third year, we will recover what we invested. It has helped us replace the cost of human resources.

For this tool, as we made the three-year contract, the cost of the licenses is maintained. If we had to hire people for this work, we would have had to increase their salaries every year.

They are expensive. If we were a small company, it would be complicated because we have to have strong sales and operations to be able to afford a tool of this level. Being a large company, the cost-benefit is covered, but it is not within the level of cheap solutions.

The dilemma for us was whether it is worth paying for a monitoring tool or whether it is better to pay people for the work. Helix Control-M was more beneficial because we had problems with manual monitoring, and these problems were expensive.

I was in charge of evaluating all the tools. Because we already had SAP, I first evaluated the SAP tools, such as SAP PI/PO and SolMan. All the SAP tools do these functions. They do them well, but they have limitations. For example, in SolMan, you can monitor and do all the operations, but when it comes to IBP, which is SaaS, it does not work. It is better to not manipulate the programming settings. It is better to leave the standard programming settings because it is simpler.

I was also told to evaluate external tools, so I evaluated Helix Control-M and the IBM solution. Helix Control-M won there. It is the first time that we have used a tool for this type of control. Previously, this work was done manually by a team of people. We used the tools only when monitoring a single platform. For example, for S4HANA, we only used SolMan, but we wanted to integrate several systems and find a solution that does all the activities efficiently and safely.

I would advise you to challenge it. We made an assessment to challenge it to see that it covers all of our use cases and we can trust it. It is a solid tool. Go for it if you can afford it.

The most important lesson that I have learned from using this solution is to not be afraid of automation. Sometimes, because you have been working manually for many years, migrating everything to automatic processes is risky, but I learned to not be afraid of doing this.

In terms of the measurable business impact of Helix Control-M, we are working on that. I just had a meeting with the commercial team on the subject of the month-closing report process. Currently, the month closing process is 5 days, and they want to reduce it to 3, for example. What they have told me is that if orchestrated right, Helix Control-M could help reduce the process time. We are in the middle of the evaluation process to precisely take care of its business impacts. With the finance department, we are evaluating the possibility of reducing time.

Overall, I would rate Helix Control-M a 9 out of 10.

Control-M is mainly used for our clients. We use workload automation and batch job automation with Control-M. There are many other BMC products that we use, such as AMI Ops automation, DB2 monitoring, and application infrastructure monitoring.

The user experience with Control-M is good. Users can implement many customizations, and though the licensing is pricey, there are many competitive products available that can provide the same features as BMC. BMC support and some of the customizations are very good. Product support and the ability to manage distributed and mainframe workloads make Control-M an enterprise workload management solution. It is easy to integrate Control-M with technologies for data ops or DevOps processes as things change, and it is not complex compared to other workload automation tools available in the market.

BMC does excellent marketing. Their product narrative is very good. From the functional side, there is no superiority when compared with other products. All products provide the same functionality. If you examine IBM Workload Scheduler, Stonebranch, or Rocket Orchestrator, there are many other products available. These products provide the same functions in one way or another. BMC might provide better user experience and better product support than other products, but there is no clear technical differentiation or value proposition when compared to other products with BMC. They offer essentially the same features.

Control-M has been part of my experience for two to three years.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate BMC's support an eight. They have very good manuals, and they respond to tickets quickly. They provide clear details about issues. From the product support perspective, they always perform well. They continuously evolve rather than letting the product remain static. This is one of the differentiators compared to other products. They quickly evolve with changing technology trends, easily adopt new features, and incorporate them into the product.

Control-M is good so far, other than being somewhat pricey.

The implementation requires significant time and personnel resources, and they are pricey. The migration costs are very high, and the available skills are limited.

I am familiar with other workload automation tools and have used many. Our clients use IBM Workload Scheduler, Rocket Enterprise Orchestrator, CA ESP, and Stonebranch, though I cannot specify why we use BMC instead of those alternatives.

It is difficult to clearly differentiate how Control-M has improved our organization's functions because many other products offer the same functionality. The key factors are how users can easily adapt to the product, the available functions and features in the BMC product, and mainly the product support.

I am using Control-M for cloud infrastructure and automation-related tasks. As a cloud engineer, my work involves scheduling, deploying, managing, and monitoring processes for infrastructure and workflows. It is integrated with a CI/CD toolchain as part of our DevOps culture.

I am using the cloud version. I am using Helix Control-M.

Control-M has good integration capability. It integrates well with all the solutions. It also has good reporting capabilities.

Control-M has improved our organization's functions by supporting high availability and integrating with CI/CD workflows. It helps maintain high availability and manage workflows across the production environment, increasing our productivity.

Additionally, Control-M has offered broad-level exposure that has increased our efficiency. Our workflows run smoothly. Everything is easy. We have had very positive feedback.

Control-M is fine to integrate with our DevOps toolchain. It is neither difficult nor easy.

Control-M made it more simple to create, integrate, and automate data pipelines across on-premises and cloud technologies. It is very comprehensive.

Control-M provides workflow orchestration, including scheduling, deploying, managing, and monitoring workflows. It helps us meet our service-level agreements. It is integrated into our CI/CD pipeline. It enhances our operational productivity.

The UI can be challenging for new users due to its learning curve. Additionally, there are some errors during automation. More detailed logs would be helpful.

We would also like enhanced API support. The APIs should be more comprehensive.

I have been using Control-M for almost two and a half years.

Control-M is stable so far, with no issues regarding crashing or lagging.

Control-M is very scalable. It can absorb more workload wherever needed.

We have had occasional response issues with their customer service. They do not always provide timely support.

Neutral

We have used Redwood RunMyJobs and Apache Airflow. Control-M offers more features under one umbrella. It has cloud-native support, real-time analytics, and other features.

The initial setup was challenging due to network setup issues and a lack of timely support from the service team. Its implementation took about a month. We did not have any downtime.

We did the deployment in-house without using an integrator or consultant.

Pricing is generally affordable, though some features cost a bit more.

New users should familiarize themselves with the tools and undergo training. It is essential to understand the necessity of using Control-M in your organization. I would recommend starting with your workflows and gradually integrating it with all the tools.

I would rate Control-M an eight out of ten.

Control-M is a job scheduler. You can schedule FTP jobs or use scripts within Control-M. You can also execute commands when necessary to schedule, or you can just run a script that is hosted on a server. Based on the schedule, you can orchestrate or automate jobs. You can set dependencies between jobs. You can correlate and create a sequence of your jobs and execute them in the order you wish. You can set the variables and options that you like. You can set the prerequisites and post-job activities after the completion, such as reports analysis, emails, etc.

Helix Control-M is critical for us. If we do not have a job scheduler like this, we will have to have people running 366 different jobs on a daily basis and 24 hours a day. These are the jobs that we run from midnight to midnight every single day on a scheduled basis.

I do not use Helix Control-M's Python client or Airflow. I am using the web client. I do not create jobs. I give my users access to create their own jobs. I just maintain the agents and keep the administration going. When they have questions, they come up to me and ask. We just use the web interface to go into the planning mode and create our jobs, folders, dependencies, etc.

Control-M has helped to give business users visibility and control over their jobs. Both Control-M and Helix Control-M allow me to give users control over their own set of jobs. They can log in and orchestrate their jobs as they want. They can also troubleshoot them on their own. It makes that easy. I just have to be hands-off and stand by in case they need assistance, but once the tool is deployed and every agent is up and running, it is easy. The people who have the jobs running or the job scheduled know about their own jobs. They know their own demands. They have control over the decision of when they are going to run it and how they are going to run it. It makes it very simple, and it helps.

You can set up your users and define whether they have admin privileges or they can just affect a set of jobs.

The fact that it is all centralized in the web browser makes it easily accessible from everywhere. All my users are IT people. They do different things. They do databases. They do informatics. They do development and things of that nature. To business users, such as board members of the company, we can give them reports on, for example, how the business closed and how much profits were there, or if all the transactions were submitted to the bank on time. If not, what were they missing? We can provide all things of that nature. We can pull it all up in a report and then schedule it on a daily basis or weekly basis. It is simple.

There have been cost savings with Helix Control-M. The license that the company was paying for Control-M, including support, was three grand more expensive than Helix Control-M. With Control-M, we also had to have an administrator dedicated to maintaining Control-M on-premises. That cost of having a person dedicated to doing just Control-M jobs is gone after we moved to the cloud. We are not only getting more money in savings; we are also making a better distribution and use of our time. By not having a dedicated person, we are saving a couple of grand. We are saving on the license and, of course, resources. We do not have to have dedicated resources such as servers. We do it virtually. We do not need to have resources reserved for the server and database. I just have to deploy the agent, which can run multiple instances in my cluster. They can share resources, which is another saving there.

In Helix Control-M, we have the automation API that allows us to customize and do integrations easily in any script, such as Java or Python. It is all integrated within the integration API.

Every year, they add another set of automation or compatibility with different applications. They are capable of integrating with Informatica, AWS, etc. You can schedule queries directly from Control-M on databases without having a server or agent. You can do scan jobs or queries directly. Every other month, they are doing releases, and they have tons of new integrations, which makes it compatible with more and more applications around the cloud.

They have a department that handles requests for enhancements. I talked to Control-M guys back in October or November when they had a gathering here in Atlanta. We talked about not being able to go back in history in Helix Control-M for more than two weeks. We submitted a request for enhancement. They told us that they are working on it, and they are thinking of expanding that to 30 days. We would like to see it expand to 90 days, but they are working on it. In Control-M, we were able to go back 180 days, but that was on-prem. The storage of that data was on our own servers. We know that storage is money, and we do not expect them to store that much of the data, but at least 30 to 60 days seem proper.

Community Loans of America has been using Control-M since version 6. It has been at least 10 years.

I have not had any downtime with Helix Control-M. All the upgrades are scheduled, and they give us a time window when they think they are going to schedule them, and we adjust. I have not seen anybody notice it. The jobs get held before the update, and they start automatically after the update. If anybody noticed it, that was because I had to tell them that a maintenance window was coming up and to be aware of it.

I contacted their support a couple of times to ask them about an error that I did not understand. They have three guys who are pretty handy. When you ask questions, you, of course, have to wait at least 24 hours for someone to respond. They are pretty fast. Most of my queries were responded to within the same day, which is great. I would, for sure, rate their support a solid 10 out of 10.

Positive

We were just using Control-M. We did not have any other scheduler. We migrated from Control-M to Helix Control-M. 

Control-M is on-premises, and it requires a dedicated administrator. Control-M has three major pieces. It has a Control-M server. It has a main agent, and it has a database. If you have HA, you will have the same things at a secondary location, so you will have to manage the cluster and make sure that all the pieces are working together. If, for some reason, one side fails, HA tries to recover in the second location. The management or the administration side of things is a challenge. It requires a dedicated person. Our main Control-M guy left us six years ago. Every time we had an issue with Control-M, it took us three or four hours to put it back where it should be. By migrating to Helix Control-M, our biggest success was getting away from the administration. Having Helix Control-M, which is a cloud product, allows us to use all the advantages of the job scheduler without handling the administration of our own servers.

If I compare Helix Control-M with what I had to do on Control-M on-prem, the process is very similar. The calendar has changed though. There was an advantage with Control-M that you could specify when was your new day load. Our new day load was every day at 9 AM in the morning. With Helix Control-M, we have to have only midnight as a new load because of the change of the date. It was a big challenge because we had to reorchestrate all the jobs to suit the new day load being moved from 9 AM to midnight. 

Essentially, scheduling a job or creating a new job requires the same effort in both applications. The advantage of Helix Control-M is that I do not depend on a single agent to pull FTP profiles. All of them are centralized. It does not matter which agent I am using. I have access to the whole list. In Control-M, FTP profiles had to be added to the agents that were being used. Helix Control-M has made it easy to orchestrate data pipelines in production because now, I do not have to worry about the whole backend of Control-M. I am sure that it is up to date, and I can log in reliably, load jobs, and orchestrate them as I need.

I once tried to migrate Control-M to something else called RunMyJobs. Compared to RunMyJobs, I would definitely go for Helix Control-M.

In terms of our environment, we are a mixed shop. The majority of our products are on-prem. We have a Nutanix cluster in our data center, and that is where we host the majority of our things. We have maybe one or two devices on AWS. For Azure, I know that we have a license because it comes with our enterprise Microsoft 365 license, but I do not recall having any hosting there.

For migration, they have a migration tool that makes it very easy. You can run this migration tool, and it will export all your current jobs in a JSON file. It will try to import them on the tenant in the cloud on Helix Control-M. We faced a few challenges here and there because at the time we did it, some features were missing in Helix Control-M or were not supported, but they were supported in Control-M. We used to have dual endpoint profiles for the MSP file transfer or the ASP. FTP jobs have profiles where the server address, user password, or key gets stored. In Control-M, you could have a single profile with two endpoints. You could have Host A and Host B in a single profile. That was not supported with Helix Control-M at the time we decided to migrate, so we had the challenge of converting all those dual endpoint profiles into single endpoint profiles to be able to be imported. I know for a fact now that it is no longer an issue because they now allow you to create dual endpoint profiles in Helix Control-M, but it was a challenge at the time.

Fixing things here and there and making it compatible took about six months. Those six months were not just because of how hard it was to migrate. It was a combination of the challenges of migration and other tasks that we have not been doing because we could not afford to have a person dedicated entirely only to Control-M. Effectively, the time dedicated exclusively to the migration was two and a half months, but the migration was distributed in a six-month calendar because of other duties and tasks that I had to perform.

We got help from VPMA. VPMA is our reseller. We purchased a license of Control-M through VPMA, and they have support and all that. We get help from them. They helped us to run the Orchestrator or the migration tool from BMC. They told us where the odd points were, and then we went to do it on our own. We came back and reviewed them again and kept fixing them.

Overall, we had three people. We had one person from VPMA, and then there was me and one of my technicians to assist me.

It is not bad. The company can afford it, and it pays for itself. We have those jobs running automatically.

I would rate Helix Control-M a 10 out of 10. I like Helix Control-M. 

We use Control-M for batch automation. Previously, all of our batch work was manual, but now Control-M has significantly reduced the need for manual intervention. As a result, our batch processes are now 99% automated.

It's so easy to navigate, and especially for new hires, it's very straightforward to show them around the client because it is user-friendly. It's very easy to use. Compared to other softwares, Control-M has significantly simplified our monthly release process, making it easier to move things forward.

We're upgrading Control-M, and the process is very long. There are numerous boxes to tick and things to check to ensure everything is in order before the upgrade happens. We run three instances of Control-M, and making various changes for each is challenging.

I have been using Control-M for five years.

You might experience a brief connection issue, but it usually resolves within a few minutes. The problem is related to the web server.

Scalability is excellent. We utilize only about 20% of Control-M's capabilities. 

Support is helpful, and the online community is very good. There's the community forum, which I use regularly to find answers to questions. BMC has been very helpful in that space. They were extremely fast and solved a difficult problem our in-house team couldn't solve in a matter of minutes. 

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. We used to use in-house software.

We have three different environments where people can work. People can use our development instance of Control-M to work on their batch processes before they go live, allowing them to experiment and refine until they get it right.

It's much simpler now. Everything was a manual batch job. Using the features of Control-M every day makes our batch processing so much easier.

It makes our lives so much easier. For our operations team, which runs our daily batch overnight, viewing everything as it happens has been an absolute lifesaver, especially if things go wrong overnight. It's great to have that visibility. It has also sped up our process, reducing overhead and weekend overtime. Batch processing is much quicker now, resulting in fewer manual errors.

Control-M has so much functionality that even if you initially purchase it to handle a specific part of your batch work, it can offer much more. We've progressed beyond traditional batch processing to include MFT, which has been incredibly useful. Our file watchers and other automation features have significantly simplified our workflows and made our lives much easier.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Control-M is similar to Stonebranch and Redwood. It is a workload automation system that automates steps typically defined by humans. Previously, if humans performed 100 steps to complete a task, they can now input these steps into Control-M and let the system run them automatically. 

The most common use case is in banking. In banking operations, there are daily transactions between customers that need to be processed, closed, summarized, compiled, and sent to the core banking system for execution. Manually, this process could take more than eight hours per day. With Control-M automation, this time can be reduced to one hour or even 30 minutes. Before the cutoff time at 12:00 a.m., Control-M performs the batch job or end-of-day process, executes it, passes it to the core system, and marks it as a finished job for the day.

Control-M makes it simple to create, integrate, and automate data pipelines. Essentially, you have a single dashboard where you can manage everything. You can create the job, perform quality checks before promoting it to development, and then execute it in production. You can also monitor the jobs to see if they fail or trigger any alerts that require attention. Overall, the process is very straightforward and simple.

It is pretty easy to integrate with technologies for data operations and DevOps processes as things change. Control-M is API ready, so as long as the other side also has an API, it’s a done deal.

Stability is crucial in the banking or financial sector, where operational downtime must be minimized. Control-M provides exceptional stability compared to competitors such as Redwood, Stonebranch, or Perpetuity. The second valuable feature is the user-friendliness of the tools, making it easy to learn and use.

Control-M can execute batch jobs and monitor the jobs it executes, though it does not monitor servers or other systems.

Since the system is stable, clients don't typically request rapid improvements. However, one area that could be improved is the AI capability and AI generative features, as these are becoming increasingly important in modern systems.

I have been working with it since late 2010, approximately 15 years.

After migration to Control-M, there is an initial stabilization period. Once properly implemented, the system becomes very stable, which is one of its strongest attributes.

It is a scalable solution. Our clients are enterprises. About 85% of banks in my country use Control-M.

I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

There was a previous solution from either Redwood or Stonebranch, and another tool called Perpetuity. Customers were successfully persuaded to migrate from these solutions to Control-M. The success rate of migrations is usually more than 97%, and it may even be almost 100%.

Implementing it is not straightforward. It requires careful installation, customization, and configuration. Unlike simply installing Microsoft Windows or Office, this solution demands significant effort and time. It is not as simple as it may seem.

Technical migration can be completed in a few months, but full implementation including user adoption and socialization typically takes about a year. This is because the tool has various users beyond IT, including business users, trade finance users, and branch users who need time to learn and become comfortable with the system.

We have previously attempted to work with the services team from BMC and found their design to be good. However, we prefer not to proceed with the actual on-site implementation. Their prices are quite high, and their approach is too rigid for our needs. Therefore, we believe it is better for us to handle the implementation ourselves.

Automation can benefit customers in many ways, particularly when it comes to saving money. For example, if we rely on human workers, we may face long Recovery Point Objective (RPO) times, which could extend up to 88 hours a day. Additionally, humans are prone to making mistakes. Let's consider a scenario where an operator is manually summarizing transactions from a single branch. If that branch has 10,000 transactions in one day, it can be quite challenging for the operator to keep track. This may lead to issues like double data entry, where the operator mistakenly inputs the same data twice. Such errors can be disastrous for a bank, potentially resulting in financial losses. By implementing automation tools, you can minimize human errors and improve efficiency.

The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for Control-M is more economical compared to other solutions. While competitors might offer lower initial prices, they often include hidden costs that emerge after the first year. Control-M maintains a straightforward pricing model based on license count, implementation, and training, without unexpected future costs.

Control-M uses a simple pricing model based on the number of jobs per license, where one job equals one license. After assessing customer needs, proposals typically include the required number of job licenses plus implementation fees. The implementation fee covers installation, customization, configuration, job building, testing, and execution until the solution is running perfectly.

When you purchase a license, it's typically through a subscription model. Some people refer to this as a subscription type or ops type. If a customer opts for a subscription, it's similar to renting a car; you must renew it each year. It's important to note that there may be an annual price increase determined by BMC, and the specifics will be decided by the principal.

BMC is an important strategic partner for our company. Around 70% to 80% of our business comes from working with BMC, or more specifically, from selling BMC products.

The biggest lesson learned is the importance of providing perspective to customers rather than simply following their requests. It's crucial to understand and discuss their requirements thoroughly, such as questioning why they need a specific number of jobs.

I would rate Control-M a nine out of ten.

We are using it for job scheduling, shift scheduling, etc. It is pretty much orchestrating all the job shifts for the IT team or core team.

We specialize in security, which means 24/7 your system or team needs to be ready for anything or anybody in the world, independent of even time differences. If you are managing your client's services from Europe, or anywhere else in the world, Control-M makes it easier to do scheduling, saving people time.

Since we have different satellite offices in Toronto and Ottawa, we use different role accessibility in different locations. That is why we are using it on-premise. However, in the next six months or so, we are planning to go to a hybrid cloud environment on Control-M since we are adding two or more satellite offices. We think that it will be more manageable if we implement it in a hybrid cloud environment.

The solution is innovative. Specifically for the overseas and time differences, you can feel the efficiency of Batch Impact Manager on jobs, batch processing, and impact management. It works the best on these kinds of issues. It saves us time and money, which is important. We save a lot using Control-M.

The most important thing is it is easy to manage conversions and stuff. It is easy to convert different systems, like AWS, which saves time.

We are working with vendors, partners, and clients to manage GDPR and data privacy. This solution is good with data privacy because BMC is GDPR compliant. That is very important, especially for overseas clients and businesses.

Overall, Control-M is quite critical for our business. I would rate this as nine out of 10.

• The monitoring
• Workflows
• Production
• Scheduling the shifts
• Timeframes for specific roles and management

Time differences are important because we have some overseas clients. That is why we are using Batch Impact Manager for the Control-M, which is very helpful for us. It detects potential blocks in advance, delays, and errors. That helps us to optimize the scheduling, then the batch workload processing as well. 

It is pretty easy to create, integrate, and automate data pipelines. It is user-friendly, not rocket science. That is what I like about the Control-M, and specifically Batch Impact Manager. You will need some orientation and need to know what you are doing if you are integrating your system, and this solution makes it easier.

We use Control-M Python Client and cloud data service integrations with GCP, which is pretty hassle-free. There aren't any problems or compliance issues. It is pretty easy to retrieve the data, do conversions, etc. They are on-time, and there is not much of a delay. 

The engineers on our team say that it is pretty easy to build, test and promote data workflows with the data coding language integrated into Control-M through the Control-M automation API. The ease of integration is eight out of 10. Python is the main language that our database managers and data engineers are using along with some other languages. 

The Control-M interface is user-friendly and easy to use. Orientation-wise, it is easy for data engineers to adapt.

Ingesting and processing data from different platforms can be a challenge. Control-M does allow integration for this with other systems to make this easier. For example, we integrate Control-M with an in-house system to do this.

I am unsure if Control-M is compliant with Microsoft Azure environment integrations. We have some clients in Azure environments. Specifically, in Canada, government agencies and nonprofits mostly use Microsoft Azure.

I have been using it for almost a year and a half.

The stability is very good. My impressions of the stability are very positive.

I would rate the scalability as nine out of 10.

The technical support is near perfect. I would rate them as nine and a half out of 10.

Positive

We were previously using an in-house solution, but we weren't improving it much, which is why we switched to Control-M.

Control-M creates cost-efficiencies, saves time on scheduling and data efficiency, and provides better data management. We use the managed services as well because we partner with some clients at MSPs and MSSPs. This solution is also good for their environment because it is easy to access, retrieve, and work with actionable data as well as all the procedures and processes. It is good and works. I would rate it as eight out of 10. 

The total cost of ownership is impacted by the Control-M pricing as well as the overall cost of the procedures and daily batch processing. We can easily see that at the end of the year, in terms of big time and money savings.

The pricing and licensing could be better. However, when I compare Control-M pricing with JAMS, Control-M is still better priced than JAMS enterprise.

We also evaluated JAMS Scheduler, which is also a workload automation solution. The pricing for Control-M was better and has good predictive maintenance that is better than JAMS. Control-M is also more integrated with Google for different solutions.

Control-M is better for the cloud. Specifically, the hybrid cloud is the best. On-premise is still okay, but it depends. Its hybrid cloud environment works better and is optimized in a better way to save money and time. Its implementation is easy from the cloud GCP and AWS. Microsoft Azure is not there yet, but otherwise, it is perfect.

I would rate the solution as nine out of 10.

We schedule the majority of our SAP jobs Control-M. We do that globally for all the production plants. We have tens of thousands of SAP jobs and managed file transfer.

SAP batch and managed file transfer are critical processes that we have automated. We are in the process of replacing Connect:Direct and SecureTransport, the legacy file transfer solution, with Managed File Transfer (MFT). That is on the global scale. 

The Control-M for Informatica is gaining a lot of popularity, primarily in the financial side of the business. They have a lot of security restrictions that make their jobs very difficult. Also, there are cost issues for Informatica, e.g., anytime they execute a workflow in Informatica, they get billed for it. We are adapting the solution to not scrum the workflow every half an hour or hour because they pay for it, but only when it is needed. Therefore, we can do a database query and check if there are new records that need to be processed. If there are no records to be processed, then depending on that output, we either run the Informatica job or leave it and check again for maybe half an hour. We are optimizing, saving money for the customers and ourselves, while reducing the number of executions, jobs, etc.

We are using on-premises. We have been for many years. We are aware of the new Helix offering, which is a SaaS/cloud offering from BMC, but it is not really ready for enterprise yet, not at our scale. We are doing some cloud, though not the Helix offering. I have installations in the cloud using Azure and AWS. We are not fully functioning there yet. We are waiting for the demand, but we are aware of the cloud opportunities and making use of them.

We have been busy upgrading to version 9.0.20 Fix Pack 100 but our production environment is still on 9.0.19 Fix Pack 200.

We use Control-M as part of our DevOps automation toolchains and leverage its “as-code” interfaces for developers. We have found that a lot of the new customers who are developing for cloud prefer to use the API and would like to test for themselves. That is really where Jobs-as-Code comes in. They can test and fail quickly the agile way. We definitely have some customers who are using that.

We have seen quicker file transfers with more visibility and stability. Because data transfers are part of the Control-M tool, they form as part of the normal workflow. We see the value in that.

If they have ad hoc requirements, then they can theoretically schedule their own file transfers with the Self Service. We are trying to push as much work back to the customers or developers that have that requirement, because they prefer to help themselves, if possible. We try empowering them and enabling them through Control-M, especially for file transfers, because it is a much broader base of the business then just with batch scheduling. Typically, with SAP batch scheduling, it would work with dedicated teams. With file transfers, the entire business is involved. There are business users, end users, etc. It definitely needs to be as simple as possible and as managed as well as possible. They need to manage it themselves, if possible, because our team is not growing but the number of customers, applications, and jobs are growing. We need to hand back some of the responsibility to the customer for them to resolve and action it.

A new feature, which we deployed about two years ago, is the Managed File Transfer (MFT). We also use Managed File Transfer Enterprise (MFTE) for external transfers of our biggest use cases. 

Another valuable feature would definitely be the MFT dashboard that is now available in Control-M natively. It is easy to just search for jobs, files, etc. Instead of the customers contacting us to find out what happened, when it happened, and why it happened, they are able to service themselves. This allows us to cut down on operational staff, costs, and time because customers can manage it themselves to a degree.

The most valuable feature is definitely the Self Service. A couple of years ago, it was available, but not with the features that it is today. There wasn't really uptake on it, although it was available. We have seen a steady growth in the number of users using it and what they are using it to do. They are using Self Service to schedule by themselves and do monitoring by themselves. They interact with their schedules. Also, the performance of Self Service is very user-friendly and more accessible. That is one of the features that we use a lot lately.

The reporting has definitely improved over the years. We are definitely doing more of that as well. We are definitely seeing more value in reporting on the batch schedules, optimizing it and seeing if we can cut costs. 

The reporting has improved. It is not where it should be yet, but we have seen improvements. The biggest thing for me is the restrictions regarding templates for reporting. You can't create your report with your own parameters. We have a meeting weekly with BMC and our customer lifecycle architect, and this comes up quite frequently. We have been privileged enough to do work with the developers. They are aware of the requirements regarding reporting and what our customers are asking for.

What I found lately about the YouTube videos, specifically, is that they are very simple. Usually, when I watch a video, I would read the manual, instructions, etc. to see if I understand it. I would hope that the interactive sessions, Q&As, or videos could be used to handle more complex issues of what they're discussing. An example would be the LDAP authentication for the Enterprise Manager. They would typically just go through the steps that are in the documentation. What people typically looking at those videos are looking for is how to do the more complex setup, doing it with SSL and distributed Active Directory data mines. Things that are not documented. I find those videos helpful for somebody who is too lazy to read the manual. I expect them to handle more than what is available in the documentation and the more complex situations.

The high availability that comes from BMC with its supplied Postgres database is very limited. Even using your customer-supplied Postgres database is problematic. We have engaged with them regarding this, but it is difficult. My company doesn't want to do this and BMC doesn't want to do that. We just need to find some middle ground to get the proper high availability.
We're also moving away, like the rest of the world, from the more expensive offerings, like Oracle. We are trying to use Postgres, which is free. The stability is good. It is just that the high availability configuration is not ideal. It could be better.

I have been using Control-M for 12 years.

Control-M is really stable. We have seen that throughout the years. I have had customers who have been running version 6.3 for seven years after support stopped. It has been running for three years straight, without a reboot or restart, doing its job. We have actually had issues with customers who don't want to upgrade. They have said, "This stuff is working perfectly. Just leave it alone because it just doesn't go down." 

We have a saying in our department as well. When somebody says there is a problem, we say, "It's not Control-M. Check everything else. Check the server, network, and database. It's not Control-M." 99 out of 100 times, we are right. It is either infrastructure or something else, but it is not Control-M.

I have never run into any problems scaling, either vertically or horizontally, with Control-M. In each version, it just gets better. I am really happy with that.

We were one of probably the first companies who bought MFTE, and it was not ready yet. It didn't scale properly. It didn't offer the functionality that the competing tools that we were currently using had. It's grown tremendously because of our input and feedback directly to the developers and BMC. I'm not complaining about it, but it put us back a bit. We have learned not to be a very early adopter. We have seen the same with the cloud. Everybody wants to jump on the cloud, but nobody knows why. They just want to do Cloud. We've made a substantial investment with MFTE. It was a couple of hundred thousand euros, and it was not ready yet for our enterprise requirements.

Our monitoring team who does 24/7 monitoring. They handle the alerts. They check their job flows. They make sure escalations are going through. If tickets need to be logged, make sure that gets done. They also interact with ad hoc requests from customers. 

There is the scheduling team who does the job definitions, updates, etc. 

There is the administration team, which I'm part of, with administrators who look after the infrastructure, Enterprise Manager, servers, agents, gateways, etc. Recently, we also have a dedicated MFT team that only looks after MFT because of the huge number of customers, requests, and requirements.

Other customers who use it are really all across the board. We had a presentation last week to our bigger department that is worldwide, but which we are a part of in South Africa. We have noticed about 52 main departments, then the sub-departments, between them. A lot of them sit right across the enterprise. Typically, the most active users would be SAP users who checks for output on the jobs running on Control-M. It is just 10 times easier to do it in Control-M than on SAP itself. We also manage to keep the output for longer than SAP. What they can't find on SAP after seven or 14 days, they can usually find with us, e.g., outputs for the jobs or logs. 

There are the MFT users who love being able to see each morning that their file was transferred, how long it took, and how big the file was. A lot of self-service users are using the Self Service function. Team leads and operational staff use it most.

I love support and the support people. It is very good. Because we are quite a mature customer and the whole team has a lot of experience (sometimes more than the support people), if they don't realize the seriousness of the situation, then we would not escalate but just to make our customer lifecycle architect aware by saying, "We are not feeling this case is getting the required personnel on it. We need somebody more senior. We don't have time to cover the basics that the first line support is trying to deal with. We've been over that." Overall, I would rate the technical support as nine out of 10.

Previously, we used a big SAP solution, which was not a commercial, and specifically designed for our company.

We have recently taken over a mainframe migration as well as the scheduling was on TWS, which is IBM's scheduling software on the mainframe z/OS. We moved that all over to Control-M. That was a combination of SAP jobs, Informatica jobs, database jobs, and normal script jobs. So, we use a bit of everything. We have also used the automation API a lot for interfacing with Control-M and other middleware tools, but primarily it is SAP and file transfer.

We use Control-M to integrate file transfers within our application workflows. It integrates with the tools that we are replacing, i.e., Connect:Direct, which is quite a legacy tool, and our old IBM tool, which we have been using for more than 15 years and has no visibility. With Control-M, you get visibility on your file transfers and how it mostly interacts with your batch schedule. Something gets created, it's sent over, and then it gets processed. Control-M has already been part of the executing, extracting, import, or processing. Now, with the file transfer, customers can see the entire workflow from the data being generated, transferred, and processed. This resolves a lot of complexities because you used to need to contact three different teams to find out if the file arrived and was processed. One tool does all of that now.

There isn't a lot of new functionality that our previous tools didn't have. It is just re-consolidating all the tools that we need into a single one. That makes it much simpler. There is one team to contact globally for file transfers, and that makes it easy. It provides visibility with its Self Service that wasn't available with Connect:Direct or SecureTransport. Our customers are quite happy to have that. We can also provide reports. 

SecureTransport competes with MFTE. There isn't a conversion tool for that yet. Connect:Direct simply provides the means for a conversion tool, but it gets integrated into scripts and applications. It's very difficult to migrate or extract that data.

The initial setup is straightforward. It changed a lot over the years as well, but in the nicest way. You have minimal downtime with the upgrades on Enterprise Manager as well as the Control-M servers. A lot of preparation is done before the tool is shut down for the upgrade. Our downtime used to be at least an hour for upgrades or migrations. That has typically come down to 10, 15, or 20 minutes, depending on the size of the server. It is definitely more stable and understandable.

We have also noticed that the exception handling is much better if there are issues. We don't get that many surprises. The errors are understandable. The agent upgrades have zero downtime, so that is just amazing. All the patching and maintenance is centralized. We have migrated our development and integration environments to 9.0.20 in the last month or two. That went very smoothly. We will start with production next week. We have been through this quite a number of times. We came from version 7 to version 9 to versions 9.0.19 and 9.0.20. We do all the upgrades in-house.

We do it all ourselves. If we get stuck, we would contact BMC. At my previous job, we were a partner for BMC in South Africa, and I was on the support side for BMC. It is only we need to open tickets for bugs or problems that we contact BMC. Typically, upgrades and migrations, we handle those in-house.

There are three people full-time on the administrative side. We have a global setup: Europe, Mexico, America, Africa, and China. We have tons of virtual machines and hundreds and hundreds of agents, and even more that we might host.

I know we have already budgeted for more tasks. The company is very happy with the performance of our teams, specifically the South African team. We are really doing more with good tools and less people. There is definitely a return on investment, just from the stability and visibility which has improved a lot.

On the effort side, we have definitely seen a lot of savings. We have some bigger projects that are automating the schedule and removing human intervention. These have reduced department staff/headcount, by about 50%, when we were able to automate the batch side of it, because also our department offers monitoring and operations as part of our service. We have a dedicated monitoring team. Whatever runs in Control-M, that is monitored by us and escalated, if needed. 

Departments now have multiple scheduling tools between the mainframe, distributed systems, and cloud. Control-M brings all of that, e.g., we have it on a single pane of glass so we can see the exact execution on the mainframe, the execution on the line, and the execution in the cloud. This is instead of using three or four different tools. Therefore, the complexity of batch monitoring and scheduling has decreased as well with the standardization of Control-M. That is definitely one of the big advantages that we have seen.

It is expensive. We have a lot of customers who complained initially about the costs. Because it's not just the licensing, unfortunately. It's the infrastructure, salaries, etc. I like the licensing model. It is pretty straightforward. We are on the task license. I know that we have some really good discounts. Our BMC account manager makes sure that we stay below the license count as well as checking for growth. Overall, it's good. The licensing is simple enough for me. It is a bit expensive. Especially with the cloud coming in, we might see the licensing change in the future, but I'm guessing.

This is now from my previous years as support for banks and big companies. If it's not enterprise scale, I find that it's too expensive for smaller companies. You really have to be quite big and need to have a dedicated support staff to run it, then you'll be fine. What we've seen at smaller companies, it's too expensive because they want to automate everything. Now, stuff that can literally run once a day for the rest of their lives is costing them $3 a job a day. It becomes too expensive, eventually. They are not seeing the return on investment because it's not business critical. Nobody is going to die or they're going to lose money if that job didn't run exactly at 11 minutes past 4:00. It's definitely for bigger enterprise companies, especially banks or healthcare providers. We have had an instance where Control-M was unavailable due to external factors for 20 minutes and there was a loss of almost a million euros because the solution involved logistics. 

We have done the usual crontab migration. Everything is in crontab or Windows Scheduler. Typically, we end up with a migration, even if it's from a known tool, where we end by exporting it into Excel and converting it into job definitions with a script. We have been involved in that, but nothing using BMC tools.

When I joined the company, I first supported them through the local partner. Because we have such a vast array of scheduling tools, they went through a PoC and business case. We evaluated three or four tools, where BMC Control-M was one. Quite soon, because the company was already using Control-M in Africa and China, they were looking for global solutions to see if it really could create change.  

What it came down to was ease of use, enterprise capability, and BMC was already in the company with ITSM and a couple of other products as well. They had a good relationship with us. We consulted with other customers who have used it as well as references because it was expensive. It was definitely the most expensive solution then, out of the four. However, we didn't want to go five years down the line and then have to change again because of issues.

We have had a very good run with Control-M. I love it.

With the move to big data and especially with our AWS Cloud presence, we have a data lake. We are in discussions with the analytics teams about how they can utilize Control-M in the cloud for analytics, big data, etc. However, at the moment, it is not a big deal.

What we have found with the Jobs-as-Code is that customers need to understand Control-M better, how the scheduling works, the knowledge around it, its conditions, etc. It took some time for the developers to get used to Control-M, then Jobs-as-Code. They are now confident with it. We are presenting twice weekly. We have an open forum for interested parties about Control-M or our department, Enterprise Scheduling and File Transfer, where we have a dedicated session about Jobs-as-Code. If there are questions about how other departments are doing it, if there is a better way to do it, if they are able to save on the number of jobs, can we make them rerun, or instead of creating 10 jobs, can it be done with five jobs? So, there is not a lot going from Jobs-as-Code directly into production, but we have a couple of parties, especially on the cloud front, who are very interested in it.

The solution is enterprise scale. Also, if you want to integrate all your applications into one view and offer all the functionality across the board, such as file transfer, scheduling, cloud, and on-prem, then you can create your own application integrations to integrate with applications that's not supported currently by BMC, like APIs. For top 100 enterprises, there isn't another better tool on the market for enterprise.

I would rate it as a nine out of 10.