Control-M SaaS Starter Pack

Control-M has many use cases with four or five very critical use cases within Bupa. The first is to manage the payment gateway and payment domain. The second is to manage the integration of end-to-end file transfer with many different critical Bupa partners because it is very critical to maintain seamless file transfer for them. Control-M uses this in a very extensive way. The third one is to obviously manage Control-M in such a way that it is up and ready for all the customers who are using Control-M. We have some end users, such as service desk who use many different applications including add user, modify user, and many other functions. All these are automated by Control-M with no human interaction. We are trying to do agent-based automation as well with Control-M, but that is something for the future.

The primary use cases are very different and vary from day to day. One of the most critical use cases is manage file transfer, which basically allows Bupa to connect and interact with various partners and vendors who are sitting outside Bupa. Everything is governed by security, but it reduces the manual effort, allowing us to automate everything, so basically no human interaction is required when it comes to sending or receiving very critical information files from different vendors. Other critical use cases include payment gateway and payment file transfer, which allows Bupa to talk with different payment providers. The whole workflow is automated and orchestrated by Control-M.

For Kubernetes, we have not explored that part yet. However, we are moving towards Kubernetes-related deployments in Control-M. We are open to exploring that in the future.

We do use cloud-native workflows with traditional batch processing. For example, the main system of Bupa, including payment and claims systems, is still running on-premise. We have many integrations moving data and information from the cloud to different environments, specifically payment providers or third-party providers.

We are not currently using Control-M to support AI or ML workloads, but we plan to. We have a dashboard feature that utilizes our own created AI which leverages Control-M automation API to provide job failure notifications. We look forward to using Control-M's workflow creation magic or JetAI whenever we transition to SaaS. Currently, we are still on-premise, but we are looking to move to a SaaS version very soon.

There are many benefits to using Control-M. As I mentioned before, the main use case is file transfer. Control-M allows businesses to send many information items to third parties with whom Bupa has contractual agreements. However, due to security reasons, these tasks cannot be done via email or any other means when the volume is large or when manual effort is required. Control-M seamlessly automates these processes and orchestrates every file transfer with a very high level of encryption, offering a secure platform.

I estimate that we have sped up our processing via Control-M by about 80%. For example, consider a business user who is making numerous changes in a sensitive Excel sheet or CSV. They may contemplate emailing or placing it in a shared drive, but what about security? The security is nowhere; there is no encryption, no PGP encryption, nothing. Control-M can easily handle this task, ensuring security and encryption, which is very much needed in our organization, especially one dealing with many sensitive information items.

The features of Control-M that I appreciate the most include the managed file transfer protocol, which Control-M comes with as a native feature. What we basically do with managed file transfer is that Bupa has many different very critical partners sitting outside Bupa, and it is very difficult to maintain the file transfer or maintain the communication in a manual way. Control-M seamlessly automates everything from Bupa to the partners and vice versa.

Control-M can easily integrate with a cloud environment. For example, we have a Microsoft Azure-based platform. We have different containers inside Azure and have a business requirement that an upstream process creates some data flow into a container, into a blob directory. We need to log into the blob directory, send the file, encrypt the file, and send it to a different business owner. Control-M can easily automate that because it has seamless integration with Azure Cloud, including service principals, allowing us to orchestrate that flow with very minimum effort.

Control-M is already operating at a very advanced level when it comes to communication between cloud-native and batch processing. The main focus is on easier connection. Control-M, with service principal access or CyberArk-related access, can easily provide different authentication methods to connect to the cloud. This makes my job as an integration engineer much easier, as a seamless connection allows us to execute many tasks effectively, making the whole organization operate in a faster environment.

Control-M has various methods for addressing compliance requirements. What we use extensively for auditing is Control-M reports. We have an external reporting vendor, and for auditing purposes, we need to comply with their requirements every six months. They come back with numerous questions, and with Control-M's reporting feature, it is so easy to generate the report and provide all critical failures and changes that happen within Control-M planning domain or Control-M database. Control-M reports is the go-to platform for us for any audit or security review.

Control-M is doing enough to keep up with modern technologies. However, there is always room for improvement in every tool. If Control-M can integrate more seamlessly with AI, which was announced at the BMC roadshow, particularly in the on-premise version, that could be a significant enhancement.

My name is Soparna Chatterjee. I work as a Control-M integration engineer and Control-M lead in Bupa. Bupa is the largest private health insurance provider in Australia. I have been working in association with Control-M for the last 12 years. I manage a team of two people who work extensively on Control-M. We use many very critical integrations in Bupa, and I look forward to sharing my experience.

I would assess the reliability of Control-M as very robust. Control-M has a three-layer architecture, with Control-M server at its core, which is very reliable. We do not see any downtime apart from during upgrades. Our current infrastructure is managed entirely by us, so I am not counting infrastructure-level downtime for Control-M, but as a tool, Control-M remains quite robust and reliable. We have provided many end users, including business users, with access to load their own jobs and execute functions with very few complaints, mostly limited to technical issues from the code perspective rather than the platform itself.

Control-M scales up really well. For example, within our technology team, we focus on integration, working on Azure integration, AWS integration, and a range of technical capabilities. With the growing demand for Azure integration, I believe Control-M can adapt well, especially since we use a data factory model. Control-M now has out-of-the-box job types that simplify orchestration, allowing leaders to be aware of minimal downtime as we transition to Control-M, thereby enhancing the platform's reliability.

I utilize BMC support as my go-to guide. We run a critical business, particularly concerning payments orchestrated inside Control-M. If any issues arise, I raise a critical ticket with BMC support, and someone calls immediately. Just yesterday, we experienced this; support reached out promptly and we began troubleshooting the issue via a Teams call. I find that the intelligence level and technical expertise of BMC engineers are exceptional, which aligns well with our platform.

I have been part of Bupa for eight years, and I believe Control-M was onboarded around 14 years back. Since then, there has been no looking back.

As for realizing a return on our investment, I can provide an example involving our Control-M and ServiceNow integration. ServiceNow is the ITSM platform used for generating various priority tickets. With Control-M, we manage many critical jobs, and if one fails, it can immediately escalate to a priority one incident, requiring the technology team to resolve it without leaving the room. This can be quite hectic, but with Control-M and ServiceNow integration, critical failures generate real-time incidents by calling ServiceNow API. Moreover, the L1 monitoring team can see alerts easily. Consequently, our SLA response time has significantly reduced; for instance, if the L1 team has a 50-minute SLA for a response, they can now respond within five minutes.

We evaluated similar solutions. We ran a few POCs with other orchestration provider tools, but Control-M consistently proved superior, particularly as an enterprise-level solution offering comprehensive integration with tools such as ServiceNow and various APIs.

We evaluated several different tools, including JAMS Scheduler and Apache Airflow. What we noticed is that while they offer orchestration capabilities, Control-M stands out due to its criticality and user-friendly GUI features. Additionally, when comparing costs, Control-M offers a competitive price for the services provided along with the package, especially as Control-M continuously evolves towards modern technologies.

I would rate Control-M very high on a scale of 10. This is not just an emotional connection developed over 12 years, but also due to the advanced technology Control-M is implementing, including new AI, data orchestration, security standards, and governance perspectives. Control-M is innovating rapidly with technology. I would rate Control-M as nine out of ten, leaving one point for improvement, as I believe every software has some scope for enhancement. I wish the whole Control-M team all the best. They are moving very fast towards advanced technologies, and I fully support their efforts as we look forward to utilizing all the features. My overall rating for Control-M is nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for Control-M at UniSuper is workload automation and orchestration, which involves different business processes such as getting a file from a third party, extracting some data from that file, and finally uploading that file to the database.

In this way, the primary use case is managing the workload and being a central point of scheduling in UniSuper.

Currently, our usage of cloud environments is very limited, as we are migrating Control-M from an on-premises environment to a SaaS environment.

After we migrate to SaaS, we will be more focused on utilizing cloud integration or cloud-based features.

Control-M is playing a major role in UniSuper for integrating with different applications.

We have integrated Control-M with CyberArk for security purposes, ensuring that all passwords are stored securely and retrieved automatically rather than being copied as plain text.

We are also in the process of integrating Control-M with Azure Key Vault to securely manage connection profiles for transferring files to Azure Blob storage, which is a best practice.

In the future, we are planning to integrate Control-M with AI and ML workloads, utilizing AI features mainly for workload automation, such as using the inbuilt AI agent, Jet, to create jobs, dependencies, and workflows.

Control-M plays a very critical role in UniSuper's compliance, especially with PayDay Super coming in Australia by July 2026.

Control-M is essential for processing employer contributions from third parties and ensuring timely responses under the SLA.

Some benefits which we have seen by using Control-M is that it serves as a central point of scheduling in UniSuper.

Previously, I saw different applications running jobs individually, with dependencies on other applications.

If a job inside a particular application failed, the other application SME had to check the issue.

After bringing in Control-M, it has become centralized, meaning if a first job for X application fails, the second job will not run, and we will know why it has not run, allowing us to easily identify and fix the reason for the failure.

Personally speaking, I value the Managed File Transfer functionality of Control-M the most because we have been using it vastly in our organization, as we receive a lot of files from third parties, process them, and send back the files to the third parties.

Apart from that, we also run OS jobs, which are basically running some commands and running scripts on Control-M.

Control-M is a well-maintained platform, but one improvement I can suggest pertains to the administrative part.

As we are migrating Control-M from on-premises to SaaS, easier methods for migrating all components such as calendars and connection profiles would be beneficial.

I have been using Control-M for five years.

Control-M has great reliability and stability.

After we move to SaaS, we will experience zero downtime during upgrades, facilitating continuous workflow operations, which is a significant improvement over on-premises environments.

In 2025, 50% of people at UniSuper were not aware of what Control-M is beyond being a scheduler.

After increasing visibility and scaling by 20% in the number of jobs created over a year, we believe moving to SaaS will enhance our use of Control-M features.

I have worked with BMC Support, and I would rate their support nine out of ten.

They help us resolve issues quickly, and their documentation is self-explanatory, often allowing us to solve problems without direct support.

From an operational perspective, there is a huge benefit and vast increase since we brought Control-M into the picture, centralizing all individual scheduled jobs that were previously managed by different applications.

For operational purposes, having a centralized point of monitoring and scheduling is very important.

If one job fails for a certain application, a centralized point allows us to easily identify which job has failed, its related application, and what the issue is.

Control-M serves as a central point for workload automation and orchestration, aiding in the creation and monitoring of business workflows.

The only improvement I see is the need for better migration methods.

I rate Control-M nine out of ten.

Control-M is primarily used for process automation in our organization.

We have not utilized the policy, approval, or risk-gating capabilities within our automated workflows, and these features do not influence how our business operates.

Control-M does not contribute to our governance requirements, such as workflow audit trails or lineage tracking.

We have SAP working with Control-M, including SAP S/4HANA and BW.

We currently do not utilize specific functionalities within Control-M for compliance trail generation or regulatory reporting.

Integrating Control-M with our ITSM or change management tools like ServiceNow is in the pipeline but has not yet been completed.

Control-M definitely supports our DataOps and DevOps initiatives.

Control-M helps free up our IT staff to focus on essential operations, which is definitely the end goal eventually.

Control-M has freed up approximately 30 to 40% of our time.

Control-M definitely helps consolidate our job scheduler tools.

In my opinion, the best features in Control-M are the options it provides.

The workflow is the most valuable aspect.

With Control-M, I think it is mostly possible to integrate AI or machine learning workloads in the cloud version, the SaaS model. Currently, we have not utilized this capability in the on-premises version.

I think the integration with SAP is seamless and comfortable to use.

Overall, Control-M integrates seamlessly with our DataOps and DevOps stack, with no challenges.

I think Control-M is fine as it is and is one of the best tools from my perspective so far, and I do not have any specific suggestions for improvement.

We have struggled a bit using Control-M's Python client or APIs in terms of getting integrations completed with some systems, and that is where support could have been a bit better. We do tend to get that support eventually, but sometimes we have to wait for US hours to open up.

I have been working with Control-M for approximately three years.

I rate the stability of Control-M a perfect 10 out of 10.

Approximately 100 users use the solution.

I rate the scalability of Control-M a perfect 10 out of 10.

I think the technical support is mostly available in the US time zone, which is where we struggle a bit. If we had a contact for support in India or Asia, I think that would have been much better, and we feel it is an opportunity.

I rate the technical support an eight.

I have only used Control-M so far, so I cannot compare it with other solutions such as IBM, ActiveBatch, or Stonebranch.

The on-premises deployment for Control-M is easy.

It takes about a day in general, depending on how many systems you want to connect to, as our updates and other tasks are quite easy.

It is easy to maintain Control-M.

I do maintenance monthly.

Control-M has definitely saved us time, money, and resources by allowing a lot of automations that save the time and effort needed to do it manually, so there is definitely a lot of ROI on that.

We have seen approximately a 70% return on investment.

Regarding pricing, I rate it an eight for now, with one being cheap and ten being expensive.

I think a proof of concept is necessary for every tool that any organization wants to adopt. It is best to look at ROI or total cost of ownership, whether you want to go for an on-premises model or a SaaS model, and then make that rightful decision. I rate Control-M a 9 out of 10.

The main use cases in Control-M for VicRoads involve moving from the old infrastructure to the new infrastructure. VicRoads previously operated on mainframe systems and went through a transformation to modernize the mainframe, which is where Control-M came into the picture. The organization was using an old product called CA 7, and it has been migrated to Control-M. The mainframe itself has been migrated to AWS on Linux. Control-M is primarily used for processing all data overnight, around 800 jobs, of which 500 are critical, making it important for operations.

Currently, AI is not being used in Control-M, but the organization is planning to use AI in the future through Jet in Control-M. From research, Jet is already included in the SaaS version, but VicRoads is running a standalone version that requires additional configuration. The organization has identified that Jet could be utilized going forward, with some configuration required. Enabling Jet would be the first step to using AI in Control-M, which would help not only from a creating perspective but also provide insights about the schedule and assist in managing the batch.

In terms of integrating Kubernetes or cloud-native workflows with traditional batch processing, Control-M plays a role as the organization is in the process of identifying what else is running outside Control-M. There could be a cloud-based scheduler, a bot-based scheduler, or an RPA-based scheduler. Control-M has different connectors that could be used going forward. The organization is gathering information from VicRoads to identify which other schedulers can be taken into consideration, and a plan will be created to move those into Control-M eventually. The goal is to see everything in Control-M as a one point of orchestration. Control-M has many features and connectors that can connect to existing legacy or systems running schedules, such as CloudWatch or JAMS, which is another scheduler. RPA can also be migrated to Control-M, and Control-M assists in this integration.

The current organization has realized many benefits since implementing Control-M, including significant cost savings in the sense that the amount of work required to achieve something has been reduced because the number of processes required to define has reduced significantly compared to the old system. In terms of hiring extra people, that has also been reduced because Control-M allows fewer people to manage complex systems. The old system required involving more people because of more complexity and more manual tasks to be completed. Control-M is also quicker than the old system in terms of efficiency.

Estimating in terms of percentages, at least 20 percent more efficient has been achieved in terms of cost savings. Approximately 50 percent time saving has been realized. About 50 percent reduction in labor required has also been achieved.

The main feature of Control-M is the interface itself, which is quite easy to navigate. When managing thousands of automation programs, the layout in Control-M makes navigation really easy. A tree view, network view, and flow diagram are available for different perspectives. The second most important feature is the viewpoint that helps identify the critical path of the whole process. Multiple tools in Control-M can map out the critical path easily, allowing identification of the most critical jobs needed to get from one point to another. Control-M can isolate everything else and show a filtered view so focus can be placed on the critical path. The third most important feature is reliability. Control-M works as designed approximately 99 percent of the time. The time feature also allows going back in time to see what happened, which enables pinpointing where problems occurred.

The importance of the first two features mentioned is because they make navigation easier. Control-M visualizes from point A to point B on the screen similar to how Google Maps shows routes, providing easy navigation so users understand what to do next and where to look to find problems easily. The user-friendly interface makes work easier.

In terms of managing the integration and sequencing of data processing across diverse data platforms and cloud environments via Control-M, File Watcher is used, which is an innovative feature of Control-M. File Watcher makes work easier because multiple parameters can be defined to determine whether the file or data has been received. Multiple things can be done around it and customization can be completed per requirements. As soon as something is managed by File Watcher, it has the ability to pass on to the next process. The organization has been using File Watcher at VicRoads, and it is working well and is quite stable.

In terms of compliance requirements such as SOX, audit trails, or regulatory reporting, Control-M plays a significant role. The main feature used from Control-M is Control-M reports, which is a built-in feature, and any report can be pulled out as needed. Actions can be tracked to see what was done during the time, and logs can be pulled out from Control-M to help with auditing. If any changes were made to the schedule, the version history feature of Control-M can be used to track changes and determine what went wrong or what happened in the past at specific times of the day or year.

There is always room for improvement. The web interface of Control-M needs improvement. When comparing the web interface versus the desktop interface, the web interface lacks many things that the desktop interface has. If Control-M and BMC could examine the desktop version of Control-M versus the web application and attempt to match those things, that would be a significant achievement.

Control-M has been used since 2008, totaling 18 years of working with this product. Each time working with this product, it feels like a perfect match in terms of how things should work and personal interests, which are all part of the role and the product.

In terms of stability and reliability of Control-M, it is at approximately 99 percent reliability. Control-M has hardly ever crashed, and most of the time if there is a problem, it comes down to either the system, a network issue, or some other issue not related to Control-M in most cases. Control-M uptime is more than 99 percent, making it highly reliable. In terms of stability, Control-M is on a quite high scale. The architecture of Control-M is designed to be most stable because it has three different components: the enterprise manager, the server, and the agent. Due to this design, it functions as a fail-safe where if one thing goes down, it does not affect the other thing. There is hardly a situation where all three things would go down, making Control-M pretty stable by design.

Control-M scales quite well with the growing needs of the organization. When working with Coles, 15,000 jobs were running at one point. At ANZ, the team had 8,000 jobs, but the overall ANZ organization had a total number of jobs of approximately half a million. In terms of scalability, Control-M is enterprise-level. That is the reason most Fortune 500 companies have adapted Control-M as an automation tool. Control-M is definitely scalable and improving every day, with each new version containing many features.

Although not directly looking at the accounting side of things in Control-M, from what is known, it has paid off in terms of career development and inclination towards Control-M. There is always more inclination towards Control-M because all repetitive tasks can be automated and Control-M is one of the best tools that has been worked with. Control-M is the only tool that has so far matched expectations or actually exceeded expectations in terms of automation. From that perspective, it has definitely rewarded in terms of career investment into Control-M.

I would rate Control-M at nine out of ten on a scale of one to ten. Nothing is perfect in this world, and there is always room for improvement. The web interface definitely needs improvement, and there may be other areas like a Batch Impact Manager that need improvement as well. In terms of reliability and user experience, Control-M is ten out of ten, but in terms of the overall product, it is nine out of ten because it has room for improvement.

Control-M plays a crucial role in our batch process related applications as we use it for all our batch processes, and everything is driven through Control-M itself without manually running any particular application or script. This provides equal opportunity for both the stakeholder who is actually waiting for their reports or any process to be completed and from an application side as well to make sure that when it has run, how it has run, how long it has taken, and to provide accurate information. Control-M helps us in making our life and the stakeholder's life much easier because of the visual representation of the end-to-end detail of how the process has run.

We primarily use on-premises platforms, so we are not immersed in data pipelines from Control-M's perspective, but we do utilize MFT for our file transfers. From a file transferring perspective, Control-M provides significant advantages by enabling us to connect with multiple platforms or vendors and transfer files in real time, automatically sending data through our downstream systems without needing to verify whether the file has arrived or not. As soon as the file comes, Control-M job triggers the necessary flow, saving us a lot of time, making our operations mostly related to file transfer rather than data pipelines.

Currently, we are not using Control-M for AI or ML workloads, but down the line, if that's enabled for us, we plan to enhance our application monitoring logs perspective, allowing us to analyze logs more compactly through Control-M along with available AI capabilities, enhancing our operational excellency that leads to quicker resolution times, as all the time spent on analysis gets expedited through AI.

From an auditing perspective, we run custom scripts through Control-M to ensure all users with access to our internal applications and their corresponding app permissions are correctly managed. These scripts are executed periodically and send reports to our internal compliance team, who review the data for internal compliance auditing reports, which we also provide to our external vendors upon request regarding critical job statuses, failures, runtime, and actions taken, simplifying the information retrieval process from multiple sources to one action in Control-M.

We have established integration with traditional batch processing, which greatly benefits us, particularly from a time perspective, ensuring that all flows have run smoothly. Control-M provides checkpoints or confirmation alerts indicating that the file has been received and processed, ensuring no SLA slippages occur, as SLAs are critical in batch process management due to their financial implications regarding posted received amounts and system interactions.

Control-M's scheduling feature is the best one for us, providing an overall view that gives us end-to-end information of what is planned or scheduled for today, including any special jobs such as end-of-month tasks, which allows us to see any special day. Control-M's alert management part is crucial as well, because anytime an alert pops up, we receive a notification indicating that one of the jobs has failed or something, and then it gives us a chance to quickly jump onto it and see why it has failed from a front-end perspective to take immediate action, preventing any SLA slippage. Additionally, Control-M's planning section allows us to see all the jobs that are already created or configured to identify their schedules and modifications, which are the main features I value from Control-M.

In my opinion, Control-M can be improved by making the SaaS model more feasible from a cost perspective, as we have many cyclic jobs running every minute, and the execution cost limits our transition to a SaaS platform. Even though numerous features are available in the SaaS version, the high cost inhibits our ability to utilize them, and lowering this cost would definitely facilitate our move to SaaS, allowing us to focus more on internal processes rather than job execution costs.

My name is Pavan Chundi, and I work for TCS, but I am internally working for the client Foxtel. At Foxtel, our role is to provide application management of all the call center related applications that they have and the backend billing operations for their customers, so we build the customers, send their invoices, and handle all the batch process management as part of the TCS group. I have been with TCS for the past 14 plus years and out of which I have been with Foxtel for close to 12 plus years, and during that time period, I have been using Control-M for all the duration, so I do have pretty good hands-on experience with Control-M from a day-to-day usage perspective.

Control-M's stability and reliability from our side are very good, as we maintain the on-premises platform and have not encountered any issues with internal patches or testing processes. Even if minor issues arise, we consistently receive excellent support from the BMC team, ensuring that our workflows and SLAs stay on track without slipping.

We have not made significant changes in our usage of Control-M; we continue to add more jobs based on our requirements, but we have not ventured into new areas outside of what we were already using within Control-M.

BMC support has been incredibly helpful for us, especially concerning upgrades and patch versions. We never experience issues or delays in their support, which consistently helps us maintain productivity and upgrade our system software efficiently.

Before Control-M, there were no batch process management or orchestration tools in our system, and since implementing Control-M, it has become our go-to solution and one of the best products I have used throughout my IT career. I find it hard to imagine the future without Control-M being present because it has integrated so much into how our workflows are driven at Foxtel.

I was not involved in the initial deployment, but I participated in subsequent upgrades, and those upgrades were very smooth. We took appropriate steps to minimize downtime, and BMC support was instrumental in coordinating efforts to ensure that we completed the upgrade with the least amount of downtime possible.

From Control-M's side, the primary benefit we realize is in time consumption and accountability perspective when comparing manual processes to the enhanced automated Control-M processes. This major advantage includes that with manual processes, we have to go into each server to execute scripts, which does not reflect accountability, as there is no record of when or how it was run. However, with Control-M, everyone can see who has run it, when it was run, what parameters were used, and how long it took, allowing for accountability. Moreover, it enhances time management because we simply trigger the Control-M job and let it run by itself, and if it fails, we receive an alert, while with manual runs, we have to sit in front of the screen watching it continuously, which is eliminated with Control-M.

I have not recently evaluated other orchestration tools, but I have seen some alternatives. However, I do not see any other company coming close to what BMC offers with Control-M in terms of native integrations and functionality. While other tools may serve different use cases, for our current needs, Control-M stands out as the best tool we are using.

From my personal perspective, I would rate Control-M a 10 without hesitation, as it is among the best tools I have used, providing user-friendly experiences even for IT newcomers. When I started at TCS straight out of university, Control-M gave me insights into how entire systems operate, offering a comprehensive overview that is far superior to what many other tools provide, making it invaluable to our processes. My product rating for Control-M is 10 out of 10.

At Officeworks, customers place an order on the website and pay using a credit card, gift card, or another payment method. However, the customer journey does not end with payment. Control-M orchestrates the entire process chain that happens behind the scenes. Customers do not know whether their payment has gone through, as numerous processes must occur to determine payment success, product delivery capability, fraud detection, and payment gateway issues. Control-M helps the organization understand if the payment process has completed successfully. If payment failures occur, the organization needs to know in advance so that customers receive communication about their order status, whether payment succeeded, remains pending, or has been flagged for fraud. This proactive communication prevents customers from calling customer service or following up with internal teams.

Another use case involves product delivery. After a customer places an order, the product must travel through the system. During this journey, logistics problems may arise, stock shortages may occur, or inventory may remain stuck in the warehouse rather than being delivered to the store. Control-M orchestrates the delivery process so that customers receive notification when their delivery is created and communication flows to logistics and supply chain teams. The system alerts when issues occur, allowing the organization to proactively inform customers about their orders and address problems before they escalate. Rather than taking a reactive approach, Control-M enables a proactive method of ensuring process alignment and preventing disruptions.

Currently, Control-M's ecosystem does not include embedded machine learning or artificial intelligence. However, the organization is undergoing S/4HANA transformation. SAP S/4HANA includes Joule as an AI assistant. Once Joule is integrated into the ecosystem, the plan involves exploring how it can integrate with Control-M. Control-M has already released Jet AI and Copilot functionality, which may be utilized to orchestrate processes faster and derive greater value rather than manually orchestrating jobs and creating key dependencies.

The ecosystem does not currently use Kubernetes. Cloud-native solutions exist for digital and data platforms, which currently run on their native scheduling systems not integrated with Control-M. Future integration of these systems with Control-M is being considered.

A few years ago, during busy seasons such as Boxing Day or Black Friday sales, legacy systems became overwhelmed by data volume. There was no way to monitor when system load increased or when incoming volume exceeded capacity. Orders would enter the queue but not process, preventing customers from receiving promised two-hour deliveries. The system could not pass orders to downstream systems in time, disappointing customers expecting timely gift delivery or holiday purchases. Implementing monitoring in these systems with advance alerting resolved this roadblock. If a roadblock occurred, alerts were sent in advance so the organization could take appropriate action. This monitoring generated additional business revenue by ensuring customers received priority before technology limitations. Preemptive system monitoring confirmed that underlying and dependent processes across systems and downstream SAP systems remained healthy, enabling timely product delivery to customers.

The most important feature is risk level management and SLA management. Orders and shipments arrive at warehouses, goods receiving must occur, goods must move to stores, and customers pick up their purchases. If stock cannot move from warehouses to stores, this represents a main use case. Control-M orchestrates this process, ensuring stock reaches stores so products can be sold and revenue is not lost. In the retail industry, every minute of failure represents a dollar lost. Control-M orchestrates processes and sends alerts in time so appropriate action can be taken before issues escalate.

The organization operates within a SAP ecosystem containing a mix of legacy and non-legacy systems along with cloud applications. The organization is pursuing S/4 transformation with cloud applications like BTP and integration suite. Control-M orchestrates not only specific systems but integrates multiple SAP and non-SAP systems, creating orchestration flows as a chain process rather than isolating individual platforms. Once data is extracted or files are generated, they can connect to API platforms or middleware to transfer files to destination systems. Non-SAP or non-legacy systems can consume data immediately as part of orchestration without manual intervention, email, or Teams chat. Control-M orchestrates all processes with dependencies that can be time-based, event-based, or scheduled batch jobs running automatically at defined times. Sequencing flows automatically through digital, SAP, Salesforce, or SAP-driven systems based on respective schedules. Everything is automated and sequential with no manual touch required. Any process failure triggers alerts configured in Control-M and integrated to Snow, creating incidents that allow support teams to respond immediately rather than using reactive approaches.

The organization conducts six-monthly SOX audits. Most batch processes run overnight, creating deliveries or handling goods receiving. Any failure creates alerts that help manage operations in advance. Audit reports review incidents from six-month or annual periods, examining audit trails. Control-M provides complete audit logs of job failures, what happened, how they happened, and complete job logs that traditional SAP cannot maintain for long periods. Control-M logging helps answer SOX compliance questions from governing bodies.

Control-M's service level agreement feature is particularly valuable. For large processes running for many hours, service level agreements can be applied to show completion time, duration, and expected finish time down to the second. This allows proactive communication to business stakeholders about process duration rather than having operations teams pestered about where processes are hanging. The business gains complete visibility and stakeholders remain informed, preventing midnight alerts and providing preemptive time management.

Last year, there were questions about Control-M because certain BTP job types and SAP integration job types were not defined within Control-M. Integration required workarounds using web services to connect to BTP. Now job types have been configured to enable easier cloud application integration, eliminating the need for workarounds and providing out-of-the-box availability to integrate iFlows and integrations, improving operational management.

Additional features are difficult to specify at this stage. However, as artificial intelligence continues evolving, Jet AI capabilities and intuitive dashboards would benefit the business significantly. Since every job ties to its own SLAs, making dashboards more relevant and intuitive would allow business teams to access them directly and see where processes are held up rather than relying on operations teams. This capability would represent a significant win for business customers.

Control-M has been used for the last 16 years throughout an 18-year career.

Experience with both on-premise and SaaS Control-M demonstrates improvements in stability. On-premise versions experienced hiccups and outages during upgrades or version updates, with 10 to 15 minutes of downtime requiring job holds. In the retail or banking sectors, small disruptions represent significant operational impacts. The SaaS solution shows marked improvement, with updates occurring on backend servers causing no disruption to processes or flows. The SaaS solution runs smoothly without hiccups, roadblocks, or outages, providing consistent service performance.

The organization has experienced significant growth. Migration from on-premise systems to cloud applications revealed the need to orchestrate on-premise legacy systems alongside cloud applications. Web services provided an alternative approach for integrating with BTP or integration suite until Control-M evolved. Currently, more applications are being onboarded daily into Control-M through BTP, S/4, and AWS solutions, enabling better operational management through comprehensive end-to-end orchestration rather than isolated platform dependence.

Scalability depends on use cases and organizational processes. At initial Control-M onboarding, approximately 4,000 jobs were configured. Currently, the organization has scaled to 7,000 jobs, representing a 20 percent increase in job executions and job scheduling. More job types continue entering the ecosystem along with Jet AI and Copilot capabilities, helping organizations identify process gaps and determine where Control-M integration improves operations. More intuitive information from Control-M enables effective process streamlining. The potential for continued growth exists with new job types and innovations being embedded within Control-M, benefiting all organizations.

Control-M customer service receives a rating of eight. The sales support team at BMC and associated counterparts have been supportive in onboarding and recommending solutions for specific use cases. When ready-made solutions were unavailable, they provided guidance on achieving desired outcomes. For example, when BTP or SAP integration suite job types were not available last year, BMC recommended using web REST API services to integrate processes, enabling orchestration of on-premise legacy systems with cloud applications. Though some nuances existed where immediate answers were not available due to organizational time pressure or required research and development, turnaround time from BMC has improved significantly in the last six months, demonstrating faster response to customer needs.

Traditional SAP scheduling tools run jobs within the SAP system only. If dependencies exist between non-SAP or non-legacy systems, creating these dependencies requires manual activity followed by emails, Teams messages, or phone calls to notify colleagues when jobs complete. Control-M orchestrates all chain events within the system itself, removing the burden of manual coordination. Once a job finishes, Control-M automatically triggers the next step without manual intervention. If processes break, Control-M creates events, alarms, or incidents in systems like Snow, allowing respective teams to take required action. This capability helps larger organizations manage operations effectively.

As an end user of Control-M, the organization uses the application rather than implementing it directly. Earlier in the Officeworks career, the GUI was used as a client, making migration to SaaS seamless. No hiccups or roadblocks occurred during migration. Jobs visible in the on-premise system maintained the same status in the SaaS product. Whether executing, executed, or successfully processed, the same job status replica appeared in SaaS. No disruption occurred in processes, and no issues were encountered during migration.

Revenue increase results from ensuring customer fulfillment. If customers cannot receive their orders, they do not return to stores, negatively impacting NPS scores and customer feedback. Delivering to customers ensures recurring orders. The organization has seen revenue increases of 20 to 30 percent over the last two years. Before implementing Control-M orchestration, proper communication was lacking and customers or internal teams had to chase orders to determine status or identify blockages. Now all processes are streamlined and customers receive proactive notifications about order status. Customers are well informed, making their experience easier and operational processes easier, resulting in the 20 to 30 percent revenue increase.

The GUI portion in the previous SaaS product offered good value through single licensing. The current SaaS application ties pricing to the number of executions, representing a model change by BMC. For critical processes requiring many executions, higher costs result. Organizations must tidy up their processes to derive maximum value from Control-M and reduce costs. The execution-based model encourages organizations to design and orchestrate processes in structured ways rather than running as many executions as desired. Organizations should be pragmatic about process design and orchestration, determining processes according to available licenses and ensuring maximum value extraction rather than running excessive executions or burning costs simply because the tool is available.

Previous organizations discussed Tivoli as a scheduling tool, though personal experience with it is limited. The understanding is that Tivoli cannot integrate with non-SAP systems or create dependencies with them. Control-M handles orchestration effectively and can integrate with mainframe systems, data platforms, and non-cloud applications, creating independent orchestration and process flows. Control-M has proven effective in orchestrating processes across various organizational environments.

Control-M deserves a rating of ten as an orchestration tool because it orchestrates end-to-end process flows and provides alerts when issues occur. Control-M integrates with service management tools such as Snow or Workday, creating alerts and dashboards that help support teams identify failures immediately rather than running through hundreds of organizational processes. Control-M enables pinpointing exactly where processes have failed and triaging from that point of failure. BMC has effectively integrated different databases and job types into Control-M to help orchestrate end-to-end processes.

My main use cases for Control-M are managing file transfers and running the database management programs for the enterprise.

When I mention connections in terms of Control-M, I'm thinking of connecting to databases to run database queries and updates, connecting to file transfer facilities to move files across the organization, and communicating with API environments using the API interface. Those are the sorts of capabilities I'm referring to.

We haven't actually started down the path of using Control-M to support AI or ML workloads yet. Currently, I'm working on a project to upgrade and migrate our on-premises Control-M to the cloud, specifically to SaaS Control-M. The next step after this migration would be to begin integrating AI capabilities into our workflows, but that journey hasn't started yet as we need to get internal approval and review the AI offerings from BMC first. Right now, my focus is on transitioning to the SaaS platform instead of jumping straight into AI integration.

So far, the thinking around how to use AI integrations with Control-M is not advanced. Initially, I consider utilizing AI's facilities and capabilities to help with day-to-day management of the environment. For example, a simple use case could be using AI to reduce call-outs to on-call staff because the tool will provide guidance for the 24/7 staff on how to investigate a problem or rectify issues. The capability of AI could help with triage and sorting out problems before the need to call someone to fix it, addressing the tendency of 24/7 teams to only react to failures without engaging in investigation.

At this stage, we don't use Control-M to facilitate integration of Kubernetes or cloud-native workflows with traditional batch processing. My main focus remains on file transfer activity and simple interfaces to run batch processes for managing database updates, data extracts, and reporting.

From my perspective, my role doesn't involve corporate compliance and auditing, but I utilize Control-M to monitor its use through audit reports and logging. I ensure I capture and retain that information for historical purposes over several years so that if there's a need to review events from six months ago, that data is available. However, I'm not involved in corporate-wide auditing and compliance aspects.

I can't provide metrics from using Control-M because I've only been with this particular organization for five years, but the biggest benefit is that it allows workflow orchestration to be done in a cost-effective manner, without the need for complex solutions or customized proprietary solutions to keep track of things or run the workflow. Control-M does that for me, and as it's a consistent interface, it allows me to deploy many different applications and tasks in one place while providing an opportunity for the business to have an easy, quick interface to determine where the workflow has progressed.

In my opinion, the most valuable features of Control-M are the GUI interface, which provides the facility for other parties to use the tool without a huge learning curve, as well as a very good intuitive view of my workflow that allows me to find issues and rectify them in a timely manner. With the new features, such as AI coming along, it's going to be even more exciting. I find that another aspect is the capability of the tool to connect to many different environments and be platform agnostic, so I don't have to worry about operating systems or what I'm connecting to, thanks to the built-in plug-in control modules.

From my perspective, the beauty of Control-M is that I don't have to think about managing integration and sequencing of data processing across diverse data platforms and cloud environments. I simply have the interface, and I define the workflow to communicate with those environments using the tool's capabilities that provide that connectivity. Therefore, I'm not too concerned about the specifics of what I'm trying to achieve in the backend, as the tool facilitates that without needing to know the target tool or environment.

I am currently migrating to SaaS Control-M, which is BMC's software-as-a-service, and this represents an improvement because it eliminates the need to manage the platform and keep it up-to-date. However, some aspects of the new interface could be improved, which are relatively minor issues. For example, I have four environments in my SaaS Control-M setup, and there isn't an easy way to tag those environments to quickly identify which one I'm in without doing checks. I believe there should be a mechanism to allow customization of the display, whether through color or a title, to clarify my location within the environments.

I've personally been using Control-M for over 30 years, and in my current role, I've been using it since I started with my current organization, which has been about four or five years now.

I can't fault the stability and reliability of Control-M. With 30 years of experience using the tool, I've encountered maybe one to three disasters due to product faults, with the first occurring decades ago and another about 15 years ago. Such failures are rare, and when they do happen, recovery is usually straightforward. I've never faced a situation where a Control-M database became corrupt and unrecoverable; typically, proper environment management with backup ensures a swift restoration process.

The workload profile with Control-M hasn't changed significantly since I started. However, in other environments, I've experienced how scalability has been quite achievable. I can execute both horizontal and vertical scaling if I understand my architecture and the design of the software. I've never had issues scaling the infrastructure or application to meet increased workloads. Currently, the workload volumes in my position have not changed drastically enough to warrant performance reviews or upgrades.

My experience with BMC support has been quite good overall. Although I faced some challenges during this particular upgrade and had to send assertive emails to the account manager and support teams, I must commend them for taking my concerns seriously and addressing them effectively. It seems the personnel I interacted with weren't entirely familiar with the new SaaS architecture, resulting in extensive correspondence with higher levels of support. I believe this experience will improve over time, and more recently, support has indeed been satisfactory.

I can't speak to what was used before adopting Control-M for this organization because when I joined five years ago, Control-M was already in use since 2011.

I'm currently migrating from on-premises Control-M to SaaS Control-M. This process involves two components: building the new environment and migrating workflows. While it's SaaS, deploying on-premises components is still necessary to run workloads. The methods for transitioning workflows from the old environment to the new have not been mature or well developed, which has posed challenges, requiring discussions with BMC to find the best path forward. Additionally, evolving security requirements have made the build and deployment processes more time-consuming than initially planned. The recent engagement with security teams shows that early involvement is essential for understanding their expectations for securing the environment, especially given the pressing concerns around cyber threats.

I can't quote a specific number when discussing cost-effectiveness in relation to Control-M because I'm more on the technical side and not privy to the commercial details. However, I do know that the project I'm currently working on will produce savings by doing platform consolidation, illustrating the kind of advantages Control-M allows me to achieve due to its platform-agnostic nature and comprehensive functionality. I can't provide a number regarding reduced spend with Control-M.

Pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Control-M aren't truly under my purview. However, I know from my current project that the costs associated with migrating to the new tool and converting it were competitive, and that the ongoing licensing costs were very reasonable compared to my current solution, which combines Control-M with another tool.

There was no evaluation of similar tools during my time, as the current upgrade was always intended to be Control-M focused. The emphasis lies on changing the delivery model to transition to SaaS architecture rather than conducting a straightforward on-premises upgrade due to the associated costs and complexities.

Reflecting on my experience with other tools, I recall being involved in a project decades ago to evaluate alternatives at a different organization. At that time, it involved comparing mainframe solutions, where Control-M proved to be a simpler tool to understand, while alternatives were often quite complex. Notably, I find the learning curve for Control-M to be less steep. I simply define what I want my jobs to do and link them together, while other tools require more complex workflow projections, such as ESP or CA 7, which aren't as intuitive in my opinion.

Based on my migration experience, I would advise anyone transitioning to a new SaaS platform to engage the security team early in the process and involve them in the solution design. Even in a SaaS model, there's a need for an architecture accommodating on-premises components. It's also crucial to recognize that moving workflows may not be a straightforward like-for-like transition; customization and potential rewrites of flows should be anticipated, especially now with the capabilities of AI potentially allowing for automation in this process.

I would rate Control-M an 8 on a scale of one to ten, simply because I don't believe in giving a perfect score. The reasons I don't give it a 10 include minor quirks such as the interface design in SaaS Control-M needing improvements. Some customizable features aren't easily accessible at the user level and can be somewhat global instead. Although the documentation is comprehensive, its search functionality isn't effective, making information hard to locate. I hope the emerging AI capabilities can significantly enhance this aspect.

My main uses of Control-M are quite varied, ranging from operational and transactional reporting to automated jobs for many of our teams and systems. In terms of jobs, we manage approximately 600 jobs in our production environment. Some of them are business-critical with high SLAs, while others are smaller types of jobs. However, Control-M provides a core pillar to our daily operational needs and a core pillar for our efficiency gains through automation.

From a data processing point of view and understanding of the workflows, I manage the integration and sequencing by working with my team as well as all the participants in the process to collaborate on the end-to-end flow, understanding the requirements from every system. Control-M helps with that by providing the flexibility of different kinds of solutions that it can support so that we can ensure the data that's coming to Control-M can be sequenced and is adaptable for each individual and end user.

My company is currently not using Control-M to support AI or ML workloads. However, we do have an AI strategy to move towards it. One of the reasons we haven't onboarded yet is that Control-M has been such a reliable platform, and to combine it with AI is a no-brainer because AI is so creative. However, one of the concerns with AI is hallucinations, which would mean we lose the reliability that Control-M provides. We do have a plan moving forward, and it's great to see the Control-M team is adding more and embedding AI into their systems. Once we have confirmed that AI hallucination will not exist, we'll slowly embed more AI into our systems going forward.

I think this is more about using a risk-based approach by identifying low-risk jobs to firstly integrate AI into those and being able to record them, which is one of the great features of Control-M—the traceability and ability to trace and identify the occasions or occurrences of hallucinations. Once we have a reliable history of the AI running properly, then we'll integrate more or migrate more of our high-risk jobs.

In terms of Kubernetes or cloud-native workflows within my company, we currently do not have Kubernetes in our environment, and we also do not have cloud-native workflows.

I have realized benefits as a company since implementing Control-M. Comparing what we had previously, we migrated from a Windows-based scheduling system which was decentralized and did not have tracking or error logging. There were risks of silent failures and additional manual work for monitoring because we had to log into each of the servers each time. There were also scalability limitations where if we needed more jobs, we would have to get more servers. Control-M has been able to address all those issues using governance, access controls, reliable job executions, and its scalability functions.

The features of Control-M I value the most probably aren't sold as a feature, but one of the strong suits has been its reliability. Throughout the 14 years with Control-M, it's always been able to run on time and efficiently. This year, we're actually migrating to the SaaS platform, and the first thing I checked was the SLAs, which are actually 99.95, a very impressive score and one of the reasons why we are doing that migration. I think this is more of an attribute and a credit to the whole team rather than being a specific product feature, but it's the support and what the team at BMC provides for the product.

Control-M could be improved, but I think native out-of-the-box, it does its job very well. Being a centralized system that provides all those compliance and scalability features, it actually ticks all the boxes. All the must-haves from a business perspective to suit a system that runs business-critical systems mean there's not much more to ask. From a customer's perspective, we will always have our like-to-haves. At the moment with our system, we still have a lot of custom scripts, so we want to start looking at reducing that. To do this, we're hoping Control-M has more plugins to different third-party systems and more support. I know from the presentation just before, this is happening on a monthly basis, so it is something I'm looking forward to checking on so that we can slowly integrate a lot of our processes within Control-M and reduce the number of third-party or custom scripts that we use at the moment.

I've been currently working in my field for about 20 years and have been with UniSuper for almost 14 years, so I'm quite familiar with the IT sector. From a Control-M perspective, I've been working with the Control-M system for almost that 14 years, constantly on and off, but from a management perspective and being able to manage the capability, I've been doing this for over a year now.

We've touched upon stability and reliability, but not as much about scalability.

From a Control-M perspective, its scalability has been a core strength. We've actually moved from zero, which is what we had in our Windows solution 14 years ago, to almost 600 jobs right now. The ability to grow with our business requirements and be able to scale according to our business needs has been a core feature. We have never had issues where the demand has exceeded the capacity or capabilities of Control-M. It's actually been a really good experience from Control-M, both from a scalability as well as a reliability point of view.

I would rate the BMC team in terms of support a ten out of ten. My experience so far with Control-M's customer service and support has been excellent because I usually don't give a ten since I usually find room to improve, but I can give examples on my rating. Going back to our journey from a migration point of view, Tanya, our account manager, was deeply involved in providing and helping with the business case for the migration, including providing reporting and financial data, and assurance on how the benefits in the SaaS environment that we will be getting for the migration. That gave our business stakeholders assurance, both from an operational perspective as well as from an ROI perspective, that it is the right move. That level of customer service has been really over and above and beyond from my experience.

From a technical service point of view, I have to say the Control-M tech team is really well on top of the technology. I remember when we had a security scanning that had a potential vulnerability which our security team was investigating. We sent off a support ticket to Control-M and we actually got a reply right away to talk about the vulnerability in detail. We went through every single point and detail and they gave us a reason why the vulnerability doesn't apply to us. That was a great outcome. We were able to communicate this to our security team and lower the ratings and mitigate the risk of that finding. It's been a great experience so far, and I'm hoping to continue that relationship.

From a deployment perspective, while I wasn't involved with the actual broad introduction of Control-M 14 years ago, I am involved this year in terms of onboarding Control-M SaaS and doing that migration. That experience has been excellent from multiple perspectives. To start off, I want to call out my account manager, Tanya, who was supporting our process over six months, initially doing the planning for the migration and giving our business stakeholders comfort that we're migrating this critical system that's running business-critical jobs without impacting our production. Then we came up with a plan on the project execution, working with our implementation partners, BQPM, to work out what the best timeline for the project would be. I'm happy to say the project is going, we're in the implementation phase now, and we're on track for our delivery in the new year.

I have seen a return on my investment in Control-M. We don't actually use a monetary metric in terms of ROI, but I definitely would see benefits that are coming through that may be intangible by utilizing Control-M. The features, obviously the automation feature being able to allow us to automatically run 24/7, mean that had we not had this feature, we would need manual work to monitor and ensure each job is running correctly. Other things such as the reporting and all the functionalities we're doing and providing value to the business are enabled from what Control-M is providing. If we did not have those, we probably would have needed to have an alternative product, and that's actually providing great business value.

Before choosing Control-M, I haven't evaluated other solutions because I wasn't there during the original decision. I think we've had a very long partnership with Control-M, as I said, 14 years already. I wasn't actually there during the actual choice to move on to Control-M on-prem, but I did get involved as a part of the Control-M SaaS migration. I didn't actually go through any other products. The main reason is how reliable Control-M has been. Given the actual reliability and the mission-critical processes that are on the system, it was actually not much of a decision factor really, because it's kind of an automatic answer that the SaaS is actually a better fit for us rather than investigating other platforms and introducing risk to the migration.

We haven't evaluated other solutions because the system has been working so reliably. We get really good customer service from the company, both from an account management point of view as well as a technical perspective. When we actually made a decision to move to SaaS, Control-M SaaS was the obvious choice.

I would definitely give Control-M a rating of ten out of ten. I'm really happy with both the technology, service, and its growth potential. It's great to see that the team is working to their customers' demands, especially towards AI, which is something that all customers are looking forward to and moving towards. The fact that they're taking the front foot and making sure those demands are met even before their customers are ready actually provides a positive experience, and I also believe that this partnership is an everlasting one.

I would like to say that the BMC team has actually provided more than just a system; they're actually providing a great experience for their customers. Being able to listen to customer requirements and come up with a solution that meets the requirements, or even though there are instances where potentially the requirements can't be met right now, they've always given us a timeline or a potential alternative. It's not just that we're buying software off the shelf; it's actually a whole package: the solution, the reliability, and the whole customer support team has been a great experience. My overall rating for Control-M is ten out of ten.

My organization uses Control-M to automate database upgrades, operating system patching, and database refresh operations, and we have implemented many cases over the past 20 years.

Control-M enables us to automate our work and make our operations significantly easier. My company is currently working on using Control-M to support AI and ML workloads.

We envision using Control-M to connect everything together in our investment in AI and automation, which is a key objective for every employee in the IT department.

I definitely realize benefits from using the orchestration feature of Control-M, which saves a lot of time and eliminates human error.

Control-M makes it possible to set up the blueprint and strategy for the whole organization, and in my opinion, it is a great tool for achieving this.

Control-M helps in terms of regulation and compliance by allowing us to easily find out what happened on specific dates or which jobs were executed.

Control-M makes things easier and more efficient by connecting data from different departments and generating executive summaries for senior management.

The most valuable feature of Control-M for me is the orchestration capability, because in the past, without Control-M or automation tools, I had to manually perform these tasks.

In managing the integration and sequencing of data processing across diverse data platforms and cloud environments within Control-M, I find it to be quite robust software that serves as the backbone of infrastructure-level operations.

Control-M definitely facilitates the integration of Kubernetes or cloud-native workflows with traditional batch processing.

One of the most effective strategies within Control-M for integrating cloud-native workflows is monitoring jobs in real-time and easily identifying failures.

I utilize Control-M to address compliance requirements such as SOX, audit trails, or regulatory reporting through its robust and mature logging system.

From the perspective of return on investment, I see room for improvement.

There are definitely areas for improvement within Control-M, particularly in making it easier to use for individuals without IT expertise.

I am looking forward to Control-M making the entry level easier with fewer barriers for everyone, not just IT professionals.

I have been using Control-M for 20 years.

Control-M scales well with the growing needs of my organization, connecting to various databases without any issue.

I evaluate BMC support as great, as it feels like a family.

Before Control-M, I used CronTab on Linux and Unix systems for scheduling jobs, but I needed an orchestration tool such as Control-M to connect all the dots.

The main reasons for using Control-M over smaller company tools include security and compliance, which are paramount for Fortune 500 companies.

Beyond the benefits I have mentioned, I think one of the major advantages of using Control-M is saving the company cost by eliminating human mistakes.

For example, in terms of money cost savings with Control-M, a database refresh for a 100 terabyte database would cost around $200,000 to $300,000 a year without the automation tool.

In addition to time savings and minimizing human mistakes, Control-M can help consolidate data from different departments into a comprehensive workflow.

In terms of pricing and setup costs for Control-M, every enterprise software has its cost, and I evaluate it based on its criticality to the organization.

Before selecting Control-M, I considered other orchestration tools that needed to communicate well with backend systems such as Oracle or Postgres.

My organization is increasingly keen on cloud solutions and is looking for something that connects different cloud platforms with on-premises systems.

I believe Control-M has many of the features we need right now, although there is still room for improvement.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate Control-M between 8 to 9, with missing points mainly due to not being futuristic enough for the current AI and cloud trends. My overall rating for Control-M is 8.5.