IBM Workload Automation Reviews

Positive

We use the solution for network automation.

Your teammates handle all BMC products. IBM also offers API features, but you can't easily write scripts in Python or JSON like you can with Control-M. In Control-M, you can use languages like C++, Visual C++, Python, or others to create APIs. You can also easily convert those APIs into plugins.

Control-M includes a self-service option and features like Control-M LX Workload, MSA, PPA, and various plugins that cover nearly all applications, including Chakka. In contrast, AWS lacks similar plugins; it requires you to write scripts and execute jobs manually. Control-M also has features like file watching and advanced manual file transfer, which AWS does not offer. 

It offers features like MDM and a Windows workstation, although there are some technical dependencies. It is more user-friendly and also includes failover and failback capabilities. While both systems offer high availability, Control-M's high availability is superior to AWS's.

IBM needs to move away from its native terminology and adopt a more cloud-centric approach. For example, IBM still refers to machines as 'workstations,' whereas other systems, like Control-M, use more intuitive terms like 'applications' or 'agents.' In Control-M, concepts like folders and jobs are easy to understand, especially if you're familiar with working on a laptop or Windows operating system. With IBM, you need to learn their specific terminology and workload concepts, but with Control-M, anyone can start working easily without requiring extensive prior knowledge.

IBM Workload Automation might be suitable for background processes or specialized tasks that don't require much front-end user interaction. However, I would still recommend Control-M as a scheduling automation tool. Unlike IBM, which focuses on background operations, Control-M offers comprehensive automation support with a user-friendly interface. It allows users to monitor, execute jobs, receive alerts, and manage workflows with a more graphical and intuitive interface, ensuring smooth end-to-end enterprise operations. Initially designed for mainframe environments, IBM's tool expanded to distributed systems, but its GUI features are still not as advanced or user-friendly as those in Control-M.

IBM needs to shift towards more web-based and mobile-friendly clients rather than relying on offline tools. They should develop Android-based applications and a more user-friendly web client for IBM Workload Automation. Additionally, the architecture needs to be simplified for easier management, especially for administrators. Even minor issues, such as a single agent malfunction, can disrupt the entire system, which contrasts with Control-M’s more robust architecture.

IBM should refine its architecture to be more user-friendly and avoid outdated terminology. Users are accustomed to modern tools like Office 365, not IBM’s older solutions like LoadTus. The updates IBM has made are incremental and haven’t significantly addressed current demands. In contrast, Control-M has made substantial improvements across versions, incorporating modern naming conventions, AI, and cloud features to meet customer needs.

I have been using IBM Workload Automation for ten years.

We have a high-level support contract with IBM, which provides access to a range of IBM products. This contract is one reason we continue using AWS, as it fits within the broader suite of IBM tools we use. However, we are considering switching to Control-M due to its user-friendly features and other advantages. As we transition, we might renegotiate our contract to reflect the tools we will decommission and those we will move to Control-M. This could reduce our overall costs, although I don’t have the full details yet.

IBM's technical support for older versions of Workload Automation, like version 8.6, was limited. We had to rely on third-party support for basic issues, as IBM's support for these versions was minimal or nonexistent. In contrast, BMC's support model provides verbal and email support and offers suggestions for resolving issues, even if it doesn’t include detailed documentation. However, IBM's support for older versions can be very restrictive. They may not allow ticket submissions or email communication to address problems.

Positive

We have a Broadcom product that uses IBM Workload Scheduler, previously known as IBM PureSolar Workload Scheduler. We also use IBM Micro Scheduler. For monitoring, we used tools from CA Technologies, now part of Broadcom, including UIM, Spectrum, DX NetOps, and DX AIOps. We continue to utilize all these Broadcom tools.

The initial setup is complex.

Pricing is similar.

IBM Workload Automation is the workload tool we use for mainframe and other environments. Control-M is a more prominent player in the market than AWS's offerings. We have the IDAP list for version control, which has been used for a long time. We are also planning to migrate AWS workloads to Control-M. These are the two tools we are using for the scheduling automation. Control-M offers many new features compared to IBM's products and is more user-friendly. We also have several internal tools integrated with Control-M.

It might be cheaper if you're using IBM products like the mainframe. However, you often need additional tools with IBM to support data management and ensure everything functions smoothly. On the other hand, Control-M offers many built-in features and plugins that cover a wide range of automation needs, including SAP, PeopleSoft, cloud services like AWS, and more. IBM doesn't offer the same level of features as Control-M.

If you don’t upgrade to a supported version, IBM’s support is nonexistent. They won't provide valuable support, email assistance, or essential explanations for issues. In contrast, BMC offers more comprehensive support. When you raise a ticket, they will communicate with you through email or calls, explain the problem, and suggest alternative solutions. They will also recommend upgrading to the latest version if necessary.

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

IBM Workload Automation provides good performance and monitoring. It tells me how we can do a lot of transactions at the same time. The solution has good workload management features.

The solution's installation could be improved because the customers have to do it all the time.

I have been using IBM Workload Automation for three years.

IBM Workload Automation is a stable solution.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

Our clients for the solution are mostly enterprise businesses.

Not everyone on the technical support team knows the product well.

Neutral

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup an eight out of ten.

The solution’s complete implementation only takes two hours.

The solution is a little bit expensive.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten.

The solution's dynamic workload balancing is very good, and I rate it an eight out of ten. IBM Workload Automation is a very good product for enterprise businesses. However, it is difficult to implement this product for small and medium businesses, as they have many alternatives to work with and get the same performance.

I rate the solution’s integration capabilities an eight out of ten. The solution is compatible with automation features. I would recommend the solution to enterprise businesses.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I work with IBM Workload Automation in a remote environment. I mainly provide level two and three support as part of a team where the bank has level one support. My role involves balancing the workload and avoiding issues, utilizing IBM's facilities to optimize back-end workloads and meet service level agreements.

The most valuable feature of IBM Workload Automation is its holistic view, which helps me find technical solutions quickly. For instance, if a customer has an issue completing their workload within a specific time frame, the tool provides enough information to identify and resolve the issue. One of the main challenges is dealing with data infrastructure problems and pending updates. Workload Automation helps me leverage current AI capabilities to recommend architectural updates to avoid these issues. It also allows me to balance CPU usage effectively, ensuring service level agreements are met. The interface is user-friendly and facilitates this process smoothly.

To improve IBM Workload Automation, I suggest enhancing automation features further, as more automation would be beneficial. The product is good enough for my current customers, but improving technical support and pricing would be welcome. We often need quicker responses and better solutions than we can manage manually. These improvements would make the product even better.

I have been working with IBM Workload Automation for two years.

The support is generally good, though there are some interruptions.

Positive

The ROI from using IBM Workload Automation is noticeable. Many customers are familiar with BMC, but with a well-trained team, IBM Workload Automation is good enough.

We haven't used it with AI yet. It supports our disaster recovery plans as we schedule yearly tests. I would recommend IBM Workload Automation because it's competitive, and the maintenance team is familiar with it. 

Overall, I rate this product an eight out of ten.

We are using IBM Workload Automation to run batch operations. The development teams batches, and the team that makes a plan and schedules the batches to be executed, and keep track of the summary of the batches. So we can say that we use it for batch operations in bulk.

I think stability and running the batch apps while keeping track of them, since otherwise, it is impossible to keep track of them easily, are the valuable features of the solution.

Sometimes we have issues with the solution's stability. So, stability can be improved.

Reporting and visibility of the solution need improvement. These days, we need more visibility. We need to access the logs and databases easily. You need to keep track of the running number of logs, like which ones are executed, completed, etc. So if there would be a good reporting dashboard, then it would be good.

There's room for improvement in the solution since it is a challenging thing when we want to use the solution's technology with our new technologies. For example, if we need to use TWS on our OpenShift platform, the solution's API is not capable enough. So the product itself needs to be aligned with new technologies.

IBM Workload Automation is too old and has been there in the organization, even before me. So, it has been maybe ten years or more. I am using the most recent version. I am a customer of the solution.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Scalability-wise, it can be a little bit challenging. However, it changes and depends on the perspective because it just needs to execute the job, and sometimes the capability depends on the application itself, not TWS. So, if I look at scalability from that perspective, I can give a little bit low, but for the product itself, we don't have any problems so far. So, I rate the product's scalability an eight out of ten.

More than 1,000 people in my organization are using the solution.

Sometimes we have problems executing a job, and it is a little bit hard to identify if it's a TWS problem or the application itself. So it's a little bit challenging to get back to this kind of an issue.

The initial setup is easy.

The time taken for deployment depends on the components. For the agent space, we are managing the open systems agent. Then, it takes just minutes. I don't have the information about installing this product on the mainframe systems as well since it works there as well. I don't have any information about that site. But for the agent-based installation, it just takes a minute.

Pricing depends on the number of agents that you install. For example, you can create a consolidated environment that has five servers and run everything from there. So you just need five licenses. Else, you can distribute the agents to all of your application servers, and it can go up to a thousand. Also, it depends on how you use it.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

We use this product for batch processing. We have hundreds of users and carry out 25,000-30,000 jobs per day.

The solution has helped us because we have multiple node servers and the workload is distributed between them.

The key valuable feature is that jobs can be triggered in multiple nodes. We're also able to pre-schedule jobs which is great.

Each day the schedule refreshes and that's a challenge for us. In comparison, the ESP scheduling tool refreshes immediately and automatically reconnects. The simulation in Workload Automation is very complicated and difficult.

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

We haven't had any stability issues. 

I think scalability could be improved. We are moving to cloud and plan to increase the number of users.

The technical support is good. 

This is a good tool and I recommend it. I rate it seven out of 10. 

We have some customers from the government side, and IBM Workload Automation is part of their environment to automate their daily work.

The solution helps automate processes so that the workload can be handled on a daily basis. It accelerates work instead of doing it manually.

The solution should offer more free technical sessions to customers so that they can gain more experience or learn more about how to use it.

IBM should consider spreading the knowledge about the solution in detail because customers rely on themselves to do some operation work. They need to learn more about it. If you don't conduct any sessions for them, they will not learn by themselves.

I would recommend more online sessions for customers instead of documents. When they start reading the documents, they sometimes get stuck in the middle because they don't understand. They want to see what's happening, which can be efficiently achieved by online sessions.

I have been using IBM Workload Automation for three years.

IBM Workload Automation is a very, very stable solution.

IBM Workload Automation is a scalable solution. I would recommend the solution for bigger companies.

The solution's technical support is good from a performance point of view. However, tickets are sometimes addressed in three or four days. From the customer's point of view, it takes a long time to fix the issue.

Positive

The solution's pricing is affordable.

The solution's dynamic workload balancing is very good. However, not all customers are using it because they feel it affects the performance of the machines by placing a heavy workload on them.

Before using the solution, all customers relied more on manual processes. IBM Workload Automation increased the process efficiency of our clients by replacing their manual processes with automation.

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

As a business we are slowly transitioning from legacy type apps and scripts jobs to web running jobs, via web services. IBM Workload Automation has supported us in making this transition.

This solution has a request feature where users can request the added features they need to have developed. Based on client voting for those features, these are developed and released.

This solution does have bugs and could be improved in this regard. However, these bugs are resolved relatively quickly. 

We have used this solution for more than 10 years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution and they have documentation on how to scale the product. We're running thousands of jobs per day across many agents in the cloud, as well as in the data center. 

I highly advise anyone that's using the product to ask about the lab advocacy program that IBM has. They're on the developer side to support customers. If you are delving deep into the core code of what they can do, having a lab advocate is very helpful in helping you go down that path.

Positive

It seemed complex so we worked with a vendor called Sirius, and they helped us with the setup. Once they walked us through the process, it was fairly simple.

We transitioned from a server license to per job license, and that saved us a lot money.

We have experience using Contol-M and Robot but preferred Workload Automation because it is easy to use. We have requested certain features that have later been developed and released. One of these features was the ability to manage version control. 

IBM provides methods where you can test the product before purchasing it, either in the cloud or on site. They're willing to come out and set up a demo for you. This is a good way to be able to test something before you make a decision.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

The solution comes with a scheduler. It contains a file for receiving things from external sources. We trigger the file, on which basis the subsequent business practices are kicked off, one after the next. This means that there is dependency on the file dependency. The subsequent steps in the business practices kick off, automatically, once the file is loaded. 

The performance of the previous versions could be better. We encountered certain issues with the lower version of it, the 9.2. Things have greatly stabilized since then. However, as with any IBM tool, things are a bit tricky. I would give a rating of four or five out of ten, as we encountered certain issues with the domain controller with the lower versions. 

It would be nice if we could get support for earlier versions. Generally speaking, IBM insists that we move on to their latest one. 

In respect of the dependency diagrams, the job dependencies across the business process should be improved. 

I have been using IBM Workload Automation for three or four years. 

The project we worked on involved the running of nearly 24,000 job instances in a single day, so I would say that the solution is stable. 

We do not have plans to increase the number of users of the solution.

We regularly reach out to technical support when dealing with issues that are beyond our control. 

We did not use a different solution prior to IBM Workload Automation. 

While the installation is fine, it requires the involvement of an IBM engineer. The solution is easier to install for those who are well versed in the IBM world, but this is a bit difficult for someone who has a background in application development. The process is easier for someone who has experience working with IBM tools. 

One can handle the installation on his own. 

Including management, fewer than seven people are needed for the deployment and maintenance. This will always involve an administrator. There will also be a program manager involved, the rest of the team consisting of developers. 

The contract is with the customer with whom we are working, so IBM is not directly involved in this. 

There are approximately 50-plus users making use of the solution in our organization. 

My advice is that the implementation be handled by someone with the requisite knowledge. This will be difficult for someone who is not properly acquainted with IBM products. It should be done by someone who knows the IBM environment, who would find the process much easier to handle. 

I rate IBM Workload Automation as an eight out of ten. 

I  used IBM Workload Automation within the past 12 months

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

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

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

I rate IBM Workload Automation an eight out of ten.