OPS/MVS Automation Intelligence Reviews

We use the auto-purge transaction for some transactions that run very long, and we also use automation to open and close files in CICS as well.

I use OPS_MVS Automation Intelligence mostly for message triggering for alert and alarm, but that is a normal feature that automation systems should do. It works well in alerting, but that is the basic function of automation tools. Everyone in the market can do that, so I don't have much impression of the tool; it is just a normal tool, in my opinion.

My impressions on OPS_MVS Automation Intelligence is that it's quite difficult to use, as it relies mainly on the coding syntax and doesn't provide an easy-to-use GUI. OPS_MVS should have an easy-to-use menu, as the way to create the script is quite difficult, and they should improve this.

I just joined the team about two years ago, but they have used OPS_MVS Automation Intelligence for quite some time, maybe five years.

My team built the customized automation scripts by ourselves, and sometimes we have vendors to help us also, but we never asked the CA team to help us.

For automation products, I used to use IBM System Automation a long time ago, and also MainView Automation, and Control-O. I prefer MainView the most, either MainView Automation or Control-O, as it is very easy to use, while I think IBM System Automation is quite similar to OPS_MVS Automation Intelligence because it relies heavily on the syntax and coding rather than the GUI.

OPS_MVS Automation Intelligence is the automation tool I use. I think OPS_MVS Automation Intelligence is good for creating complex rules because it's coding, but it takes time to learn how to use it. OPS_MVS Automation Intelligence works well if you know the syntax very well and you have experience in creating scripts or REXX syntax; it would be very good and is a good tool, but it takes time to learn, so that is for experienced staff to work with. I would rate the product a six from one to ten. I cannot think of any additional features in the next release of OPS_MVS Automation Intelligence.

Our use case now includes the addition of two new LPARs. OPS/MVS is implemented on both additional LPARs.

One of the biggest advantages is the prevention of problems from getting more severe. If you know what's going on, and if there are things that you can do to automate your responses, it makes your life easier. I now get very few calls during the on-call period and, in part, it's because we know what's going on and can automate responses.

To me, the most valuable features are its ease-of-use and being able to clone some of what you've done with some of the rules. It makes it really easy to administer. I've had people tell me that it's one of the best automated systems they've ever worked on.

I just installed version 12.3, which actually already has a number of new features. It's going to make it easier for some of our new users.

I'm old-school, I learned it the old way. I actually want to go back and implement it and start doing things the new way. As I need to train people, it's going to make it easier for them and make the learning curve much shorter.

The new release addressed some shortcomings of the product. It was old-school. The learning curve was a little bit long in the beginning, but it's really come a long way.

It's been an extremely stable product. For all of the upgrades that I've ever done with the product, I don't think I've ever had a problem that was just from the product itself. There were a couple issues that I introduced myself, but they were easily explained and easily fixable.

Scalability is really good because, for the few systems that we have, it easily manages the message workload that we put out and could really handle much more. I know of much larger sites that are using OPS/MVS for their automation and these other companies wouldn't be using it if it wasn't scalable to the extent that it is.

Support for the product has been very good. I don't think I've ever had to open a problem ticket with the vendor on this product, unlike some others we've had.

CA's support has always been very good, and I’ve always gotten quick responses for everything that I've done.

The licensing structure and pricing are comparable to what we've been used to paying and maybe even better. Just the fact that we're getting an overall better product, better suited for what we want to do, makes it worth the money.

For what it was produced for, it's an excellent product. It's done everything that we wanted to do with the product and more, which has been a really big help for us. It's made my job much easier. It's very sustainable and an extremely stable product over the last cycle that we have had it.

They continue to enhance the product and make it easier for even more general users to use.

After using it for some time, I still feel it's a great product: easy to install, implement, and administer.

System/ops automation, SSM, OPSLOG, etc.

Orderly startup and shutdown of z/OS and all components.

• SSM - Provides for orderly startup and shutdown.
• OPSLOG - Enables filtering by message-id, and/or jobname(s).
  
• Rules - OPS/REXX interface streamlines deployment, interfaces easily with JES2 and z/OS.
  

• The interfaces to USS, CA UIM could be better.
  
• CA Common Services interfaces - namely Zdata Mover, Zmessage Service, Zdatacolletcor - are poorly documented.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

Tech support is excellent.

Migrated from AutoMate/MVS in the 1990s. We went with the best automation solution available.

Initial setup was straightforward, used CA-supplied migration tools.

NetView, Candle products, ASG-Zack.

It's easy to use.

We use it to automate our responses to messages, and to get early notification on potential problems. We also use it for orderly startups/shutdowns of the operating system and all started tasks.

We have eliminated human error in the startup of one of our most critical applications, thereby reducing the risk of unwanted downtime.

OPS/REXX, because it allows us almost unlimited flexibility in automating our system.

One thing that comes to mind is the MQ interface. The last time we tried to use it, it seemed a little clunky.

Also, performing a stop/restart of OPS/MVS could be a little smoother too. Without special coding, some undesired tasks will be started and some necessary tasks will be stopped if we have to bounce OPS/MVS during the day.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

Superb. Every time I have an issue, tech support answers promptly, and they always have solutions.

We had been a user of AF/OPERATOR, and needed a replacement for it. We switched because of cost and because our implementation of AF/OPERATOR was substandard.

The setup was straightforward. We received on-site assistance from CA, and they not only helped us set up the system properly, they also made sure to transfer the knowledge to us.

We have looked at BMC's AutoOPERATOR.

Go for it. It's a superior product for automation.

z/OS automation.

Once automatic IPL has been defined, anyone can perform an IPL with very little intervention. We know that all of the components will be started correctly.

Also, because we can define complex commands, the training of new operators is quicker. We can also put checks in place that will prevent user errors.

• Responding to various events in the system.
• Performing automatic IPL and shutdown.
• Verifying system status.

It makes our job, as operators, easier.

It’s a complex product. The initial installation is easy, but implementing various functions is a constant process.

No stability issues.

No scalability issues.

Excellent. It’s quick, responsive, and there is no problem with asking "how-to" questions.

As the system became more complex, a solution was needed to make things simpler for operators and system programmers.

I’m not involved with these aspects.

Look at the samples. There is a lot of information there.

Also, this product has integration with CA-SYSVIEW, and they work great together.

Mainframe: Everything from message suppression to posting jobs in CA 7 and opening tickets.

It is performing well.

It watches the slug, the BDIs, and the other systems that we have. It alerts the operators when it is time to repair the communications and the IPLs.

I do not have to keep recordings. It is there and is proactive. It helps the operators, human editors, and me.

I am not using all the stuff that I could use now, so I do not know. It is working very well for us.

There is just so much in there that I am not utilizing, though I might not need to utilize. It is just not knowing everything in the product.

It is very stable. We have had very few problems with the product itself. Mostly like parameter numbers, things change. It needs to figure it all out, and suggest parameter changes.

It is good. Variability with a lot of content. Not a lot of issues and it is automated. Easy to upgrade and easy to support.

The service has been wonderful. I like the people that I have had to deal with. The process is very straightforward. I call or use the website.

The follow-up surprised me. Making sure that I am happy with what I have gone to them on. They will call after I have made changes and verify that I am happy with the changes that I did have to make. If it did not fix the complete problem, they go back over it until I am satisfied.

I was not involved in the initial setup, though I have created and brought in new releases and stuff. The upgrades are pretty easy. When I do have questions, they usually walk me through it.

I don't know which vendors that we were looking at. I was before my time at the company.

I do believe we selected the solution because it was the most robust at the time and the easiest to maintain.

I would recommend the solution. It is a very friendly solution: Easy to upgrade and it is pretty self-contained. It does everything you need it to.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: 

• Responsiveness of support. 
• Easy to follow instructions. A lot of times you open a manual and it is like a foreign language to you, if you don't have the knowledge upfront. You need a vendor there to explain it, and CA has been very helpful.

Our primary use of OPS/MVS is automation on the mainframe system, controlling resources, and tasks. 

The performance of it is beyond exceptional. It is probably one of the best products that I have ever worked with. It is easy to use, comprehensive, and can perform almost any task you need it to. 

• Simplicity of use
• Reliability of the product
• Scalability
• The performance functionality

The width and breadth of the options available that we do currently not use, but are available to us.

The further expansion of the mainframe teamcenter interface. Also, the web services support is something that I am looking into.

Though, it currently meets my needs perfectly the way it is.

The GUI interface could be improved, but that is coming. They are working on that.

Stability is probably the best out-of-the-box. Put it in, set it up, and you leave it alone. It works wonderfully.

We have had very minimal problems, mostly of our own causation.

I have been using it as my own user for over twenty years. With the bank, since I have been there, seven-plus years.

Scalability is simple and easy. We just built another system, put Ops on it, and built it in less than an hour.

We have not had any issues with the scalability.

Their technical support is incredible, immediately responsive, and even if it is not updated to Level 2 support sometimes, they chip in providing more detailed answers and options to fix the problem.

I was not involved in the initial setup, but I know it was straightforward. The documentation is simple, easy to follow, and use. A limited, first-time systems programmer can do it, in that it is out-of-the-box almost functional.

No.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: 

• Cost
• Functionality
• Cost of the business.  

We have managed to avoid a lot of incidents with it. We can, in fact, with OPS/MVS cope with some incidents before they happen.

The product is really a very good automation. It's around the Rolls-Royce products of the automation products that are around. It's a very stable product. I very much like the SSM stuff in it. The rules engine, it's awesome.

There is always room for improvement and new features, and we like new features, so if CA delivers them, we are happy to use them.

Before, we had downtime without the product. Now we can, in fact, avoid the downtime with it.

It's very scalable. You can automate with it, a 1CP, and for the moment we have around 200 LPARs. So you can, for one LPAR, it's a logical partition... or with 200. It's very scalable.

Very good, because if I open a ticket with them, I get instant reaction, and the solution is also very fast.

It's relatively straightforward. It's not so complex. Of course, if you are a newbie, it will be more complex than for someone who has done it before.

Regarding important criteria when selecting a vendor, it's all together: It's the stability, it's the support. I also know some of the developer guys, and that's really an add-on if you know them, and you can talk to them straight here at CA World.

It's definitely a 10 out of 10, because it's a very stable product. It's a really fast product. It's one of the best on the market. I compared other products like stuff from IBM, BMC, with it, and it's nothing like anything else on the market for the moment.

We use it to monitor day-to-day activity in the system and to automate things like start-up, start a task. Basic overall health of the mainframe, and day-to-day business as usual.

It has performed very well.

It allows us to respond faster to issues. If there are issues that come out, we're able to capture a message and alert somebody about it.

The simplicity of it, as far as getting new people to use the tool.

It's very flexible. You can customize what you need to, which is good. For example, you can do your own coding inside the tool, make your own scripting tooling.

The scalability. We're able to use it across our whole enterprise.

It does everything we need right now, I can't know of anything else we really need at the moment.

If I really had to put my finger on anything, mainframe tools are pretty old as far as the pricing models. Maybe that could be improved. Should I be able to buy whatever I want, and then I pay for what I use? Or maybe I don't pay anything for the product, and I then pay for the support. More of an open-source model.

It's good. It's been very stable for us, for the 10 years we've had it.

Like I mentioned earlier, it goes across the enterprise, so it's been very scalable.

We use technical support all the time for it. We're a big shop, we have a large enterprise of system. So there are a lot of issues that come up, or sometimes it may just be a question about the product. Maybe we're doing an upgrade and you need to know, "Am I doing the right thing?"

They're good. We haven't had any issues. Responsive, absolutely.

The path we were going down was between IBM and CA, and we thought about which one we should go with. For us, the flexibility and scalability is what sold us on this.

Just IBM, in addition to CA.

Our most important criterion when selecting a vendor is how closely do we partner with them, that is the biggest thing for us. What kind of attention do they give us when we have issues? We're satisfied with that with CA.

I give it an eight out of 10. There is always room for improvement. To get it to a 10, I will know when they do it. Maybe it's cheaper, maybe it's some new flexibility in the product that we've never even thought about. If they anticipate the industry, what's going forward, what's out there, is it something that you would maybe use it in the cloud.

For the mainframe it's a really good automation tool. It's been really solid for what we needed it for, and it's been flexible and scalable across the enterprise.

It's distribution. The logistics of distribution. Warehousing, distribution, inventory control, shipping, bills of material.

Considering it's 35 years old, it's still functioning well, primarily because of the resources that are available, and tools that have been introduced that can connect to legacy applications. 

The benefit is that the ROI, since it's 35 years old, the ROI is coming back over and over and over.

I don't think it improves the way our company functions. Because of its age, it's a little bit difficult to modernize some of the integrations and some of the functions. The people who support it limits us, but at the same time it's providing us benefit.

It's very secure, because it's a legacy application. It allows a natural, organic encapsulation of data.

Definitely having more web-based interface. Definitely be more mobile-open. More APIs, more open source to it.

The product is very stable.

Scalability is zero. It cannot be scaled because of its age. And it can't be scaled because the newer warehouses, or the new distribution units, require far more automation, far more artificial intelligence, far more robotics. This application, unfortunately, cannot be scaled, unless you add more middleware pieces. So it's great where it's at, but modern environments are having a difficult time scaling it.

They're good. Very good. They're efficient. They know our environment. It's a good relationship.

I was not involved in the initial setup but I have been involved in an upgrade. It was complex. It wasn't a major upgrade. It was just an application version maintenance-level upgrade.

It was complex because of the integrations. It was complex because of the availability of the system. It's at 32 distribution centers, so you have to work with one distribution, or a few, at a time. Like I talked about scaling. You had to do 32 distinct upgrades, and they all had their own little engagement, and they had their own little nuances, depending on the location.

The most important criteria when selecting a vendor are depth of support, intelligence on the industries that we are in, and similarities of different organizations so we can leverage their data points to make sure that we have a streamlined approach on support going forward.

I would look at the vendor's internal teams to see if there people capable of supporting it, and what it will take to ensure that there is sustainability around it. And last but not least, what is the roadmap of the product compared to the roadmap of your company? Strategically, they should be in lock step.