Endevor Reviews

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

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

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

I have used this solution for 20+ years.

We did not have stability issues.

We did not have scalability issues.

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

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

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

I'm not involved with pricing or licensing.

We looked at Changeman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical support is correct.

We did not previously use a different solution.

Implementation requires a good level of knowledge and expertise.

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

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

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

One of Endevor's most valuable features is the ability to have your source in a repository that keeps track of all of your versions. It also has your ACMQ, which allows you to keep track of your input and output components. It has everything in it that you need for auditors: who asked for the change, when the change moved up, all the different stages, and where the approvals are. So, when we have auditors come in, we can trace it from production all the way down through the development, and the changes that we made at a line level.

When we first brought Endevor in, we had a lot of issues with audits. We had Librarian. We had Panvalet. When we brought Endevor in, almost 18-20 years ago, the auditing issues went down dramatically, once we had everyone into Endevor, using it, and we had everything turned on. Now, when we have audits, they go through smoothly. They barely ask us any questions because we can prove the changes all the way up through production, and there's no issue with having to come back for information later.

Right now, we're looking at moving into DevOps, so I'm glad to see that CA has started DevOps on the mainframe. We're looking at using the Eclipse user interface, which will make it easier to move off of ISPF, and we're looking at possibly using Application Lifecycle Conductor. Endevor plugs into that so that we can use more of a pipeline for DevOps and for agile processing; get the pipeline in place so that we can trigger off and go to tools such as JIRA, Jenkins, and still be connected to the mainframe so our projects are all in one.

There is one feature, the sandbox feature, that allows you to virtually create environments for developments and then, once your project is done, those environments go away as you move up through the lifecycle. You can always build new environments.

That's a very good feature, but there are pieces of it that make it difficult to use for my company because of the way we have our data set up. There are some features in there I would like to see improved.

The Sandbox feature was added a few years ago and would be very helpful, but there are several companies that cannot use the feature due to the design. The Sandbox feature reuses the Subsystem field as an identifier for the sandbox then returns the modules back to the original subsystem when done. However there is no mechanism to save the old subsystem field at the module level, so only modules from one subsystem can go into a sandbox. That’s great for standalone or simple applications.
My company uses object oriented code with several layers, so one application may use many subsystems. Without the ability to map the modules back to their original subsystems we cannot use the sandbox feature. It would have worked well if a new field was introduced for the sandbox name instead of using the subsystem. Perhaps a new field or table could be added that would save the old subsystem so it could be replaced when the modules move out of the sandbox.

Currently the only solution is to continue creating environments for use with agile development which is a maintenance nightmare, or ask the application teams to redesign their software so it is contained within their own applications. This is not an option. So we’re going with the maintenance nightmare. I’ve tried designing a solution around the sandbox feature but it will be just as complicated as writing my own solution.

We have had this product for 18-20 years.

Endevor's very stable. We haven't had any issues with it going down. It's on the mainframe, so there really are no issues with stability.

We have five sysplexes. We've increased the number of LPARs. We've increased the number of business units; the lines of code. Everything is increased and we've automated moving things to production, so it really, it scales very well. We've had no issues with that.

We've used technical support several times, when they come out with new features. If we have issues with the features, or we're trying to figure out how we can use them best, we call technical support. Technical support has been great. They point us to the documentation; they'll help us with any issues; they work through everything very quickly.

I was not involved in the initial setup. I was a developer at that point, so I worked with Endevor from the other side.

Later on, I came in as the technical lead on Endevor. At that point, I was involved in cleaning up and streamlining what we had in our Endevor implementation.

The upgrade processes have changed over the years. The upgrade process is very easy now. It's an easy download and then we just have to do our testing. Rolling it out to the users is very simple.

Make sure you involve the technical people from CA on your design. When you bring your tools in, make sure you tell them what you're trying to solve, so they can help you design it correctly the first time, because once you get it in, it's difficult to change the way your design is without disrupting your business.

I haven't seen a perfect product, mostly because the products are usually very good in mainframe or distributed. I haven't seen a product that's really good in both. If it were good in both the mainframe and distributed source code, I would give it a perfect rating.

The security component of CA Endevor enables you to lock down the source code. It's very important for the source code be secure in a Fortune 500 company. Once you lock it down, you must belong to a specified group to access it. From there, you can view it, you can’t edit or update it. You can look at the source code, but you can't modify it.

I also use CA Endevor to migrate JCL and PARMs from my distributor jobs, which I use for SAP Finance Arm software. I use C7 Scheduler to run batch jobs. For those batch jobs, I use Endevor to migrate the JCL and PARMs. So Endevor is my source code that enables me to bring the JCL and PARMs from AD to ST to QA to production. I create the JCL and PARMs from cycle one; and I migrate all the way up to production. Endevor controls all of this.

For most companies, securing the source code is absolutely essential.

• I would like to see it used for Hadoop, which is really huge now. I would like to see it integrated with that concept.
• It's primarily a mainframe product, but I would love it be more scalable outside of the mainframe, such as on Windows and Unix platforms.
• Durability

CA Endevor is a very scalable product. It's scalable in the sense that I use it for all my distributed scheduling, Java batch, SAP, and mainframe jobs. So three platforms use CA Endevor for JCL control and migration.

Technical support was excellent.

Endevor has always been our source code. The support they provide for their products is bar none: excellent. If we have any problems with the product, CA support is always there for us. They're always talking to us about enhancing their products as well.

Give CA and their products a try.

• We utilize the security associated behind Endevor.
• The external security interface that we use.
• The application lifecycles, to allow developers to do their own work at lower stages, and then turn it over to our production control area for subsequent installs, eventually into production.

It helps us manage homegrown and vendor-purchased software, where we maintain the source.

As a matter of fact, I am involved with end-of-sprint reviews. The product is being managed by the Agile development process. I've been invited as an owner of the product from outside to actually participate in the end-of-sprint reviews. I'm able to ask questions about features they're representing, as well as to request updates through the CA Community site.

There's always room for improvement. It's just a matter of what that improvement would be. I actually attended a recent CA conference to try to better understand how to utilize Endevor at our own shop, in an Agile development methodology. Currently, I'm pretty much all waterfall-type progression, so I’m not very agile at all. But more and more areas of our company are turning to Agile management.

Stability is very solid.

We have an IT department of around 600 employees. About a third of those manage software on the mainframe. So, 200 to 300 employees use Endevor Software Control Manager.

We use technical support on occasion. I've had questions, but no real issues. I've had questions about usage of the product, which have been answered by CA Support; not actually installing fixes to the product, but better understanding how to use the product. They were very helpful.

I was not involved in the initial setup, which happened back in 1993.

I've been in this role for the last eight years. Lately, I've actually installed and upgraded the last two releases of the software. It's gone very well.

The only other vendor I could possibly think of would be Compuware.

It's not a perfect solution. I never rate anything perfect.

The most valuable features are its security and its inability to not lose anything. We've been using it for 10 years at this company, and I used it previously for 17 years and I have never lost an element.

The way we have it implemented it, the developers really don't have to “work to make it work”. For example, they can take a COBOL program, hand it to Endevor, and the tool takes it, compiles it, and does everything it needs to do with it. They don't have to do any interactive work.

With the scrum teams that Pete McCullough is working on in the Endevor community, I really can't say what we would like. We make our inputs on a weekly basis and they work on it. Previous to this solution, we would hope and hope to get something and it would take forever, if we would get it at all. Now things are coming to fruition much faster. So there's really not anything that we're yearning for. It's coming true. I don't know what else I would suggest for improvement.

We've been using it for 10 years at this company, and I used it previously for 17 years.

The tool is extremely stable. In fact, our leadership often asks what Endevor is because they have never heard it. It never breaks. It never has any issues.

Scalability in our environment is pretty robust. We're able to change it on-the-fly whenever we need to. The upgrades are fairly simple. We just went through another upgrade and it was fairly simple.

They're very attentive and they respond rapidly to us. This is a good change from how it used to be for the last 5-6 years.

We were using a different solution. When I moved to the company, I realized that it was time to get on board with cutting edge technology and get out of the arcade toy world.

I was involved in setup. It was complex from the aspect that we were going from a different, core product. It was complex converting everything over to the libraries. But CA was very, very helpful in getting that work done for us.

When selecting a vendor, check the quality of the tools, the stability, and most importantly, the customer response to issues.

Our short list was CA and IBM. IBM couldn't do what we wanted them to do, even though they told us that they could. So CA won hands down.

I've been in this world for quite a few years and I haven't seen anything that's even close to doing what Endevor does. Give me a call. I seriously recommend that you consider this solution. Talk to the techs at CA. Ask the CA reps to contact you. They can really give you solid advice.

It is easy to use, easy to learn, and easy to maintain; also the automation.

We primarily benefit in terms of the availability and reliability of our software during the development lifecycle.

There are a lot of areas: using it cross-platform; across a diverse set of application portfolios, including legacy systems, as well as open systems; both waterfall and Agile development. I'm not sure I can say there's one particular focus. We can have more features.

We find the solution to be very stable. There are no major issues or problems that I'm aware of.

We run a very large enterprise, so it scales very well for us.

We get very good and timely responses from support. It is very good.

This solution has been in place for a long time, longer than I've been around.

I'm not sure I can say which vendors were on the short list, but I can tell you that decisions are made primarily from the standpoint of cost effectiveness for the business, as well as the product features and functions. It must be able to meet the minimum requirements as well as be cost effective. The overall efficiency and effectiveness is there; and the responsiveness is there.

When I choose a vendor, I look at stability, reliability, responsiveness, and efficiency.

Do your homework. Talk to customers. Don't just rely on market research. Find what other people's experiences have been. It's very valuable.

The valuable features are definitely its customization facilities and its scalability for our organization. Those are the two biggest things from which we can leverage value.

We've got full auditability through the product and that's a huge thing for a financial organization to have in place just from one product. The great thing about the new features is that CA reacts directly to us. We demand new features as customers and they just build it right away. We wanted long names to be put into the product so we could store longer named file definitions and element definitions and that's being released right now. That was from a requirement. In a very short time, CA made a requirement into the real end game.

While CA is able to react to our requests for new features, I think the downside is they don’t use as much long, or medium term strategy anymore.

It is extremely stable software. We don't see it fail. Even with product upgrades it is solid. It has never failed in its history at the bank.

It is completely scalable as a solution. That is important to us. We've probably got one of the biggest implementations of Endevor as a CA customer and it scales completely to our requirements. It provides six terabytes of space. I don't think anybody else providing more space that.

I'm not sure because I didn't select CA as a vendor. I guess price, realistically, has a lot to do with the end solution of what you're actually choosing. Features and stability should be on the list, but realistically, price has to be in there as well.

You need a team of people to support this product. It's not a buy and forget product. You need a team of experienced personnel to support it and they'll gain that experience over time. It's not something you can just go out and buy and implement and have all of the functions and all of the features given to you straight away. You need the professionals behind it to actually do this.

We switched from a home grown Librarian based System to Endevor starting in 2009. The product provides good visibility of code changes, and change history. It provides good security options as well.

The biggest benefit we have gained from using this product is the decrease in deployment errors. With our old system, binds and new copies were done manually based on paperwork filled out by the programmer. Now all that is done through Endevor processors.

The biggest irritation I have is the footprint checking process. Once the footprints get out of sync it is hard to tell what the issue is and to fix it.

Support is quite good for this product, although it has become a little more time consuming lately. All calls now appear to go through a general service person first. I have always gotten attention the same day. Not always a fix or an answer that quick, but at least a response from a service tech letting me know they had the problem and were working on it.

The product is still being actively enhanced and there is a strong user community.

We cut implementation errors by around 99%. Less effort is required by developers to set up migrations and the moves are much easier and less prone to problems.

Endevor can be very rigid. When you install and set up your map which controls the way code moves between stages it is important to be sure it is like you are going to want it for the long hall. The map is complicated to change once code is in flight. Each stage is related to the next and this relationship can only be changed when elements are at specific points in the migration cycle.

We have been using this product since 2009.

The biggest issue we had was kick back from staff that didn't like change. We also picked an installer that had a set way of doing the job and so we have an install we don't like. I would strongly suggest that new users take time to understand the product and the different ways it can be set up instead of letting someone just decide for them.

No issues with stability at all.

No issues with scalability.

Customer service is very good.

Technical support is also very good.

We had our own home grown solution that required constant maintenance and patching.

The internal setup is complex and rigid. Get it like you want it the first time. The actual product install is not complex.

We used a contract installer recommended to us by another company, not from CA. This company had a set way that they did the installs and we were not proficient enough with the product to object to some of the things that were done. I strongly suggest that new users take the time to understand the product BEFORE the install.

We did evaluate several products including IBM ClearCase and MKS.

Our company uses ROSCOE for it's primary development. Although ROSCOE and Endevor are owned by the same company, the ROSCOE interface for Endevor is many years out of date.

Valuable features of Endevor include the ability to see all code modifications and a smooth transition into production.

Our organization now has standardized change management processes for implementation into production. With our old process, any number of people could have put code into production, but now Endevor is the only user who can touch production.

The parts of Endevor which we use do not need improving as they work very well.

Endevor offers many flexible processing options, but our organization does not use the product’s capabilities to their fullest potential. The processing options in our shop work quite well and are easy to understand.

Conversion to Endevor began about nine years ago.

I have not encountered any stability issues. Each version upgrade of Endevor has been stable.

As Endevor moves through the stages toward production, disk space can become an issue. PDSE structures resolve space issues.

Endevor technical support is definitely a 10/10. I have few issues with Endevor which require technical support. However, when I do submit an issue or question, response is immediate.

Our previous solution was an in-house developed system. The switch to Endevor was made because the in-house developed system was cumbersome to use and was lacking accountability.

The initial Endevor setup was very straightforward. After setting up the system and subsystem information within Endevor, source code is ported into Endevor through a batch process. Endevor keeps track of components for each element, so one part does not move into production without the other parts.

I’m not sure if other options were evaluated. Endevor had already been selected by the time I joined the team.

Do not bring the current process into Endevor. Consider moving forward using standard methodology, and make the move to Endevor a priority project.

It’s a very nice product and runs without errors.