We previously used our own similar solution prior to using AutoSys Workload Automation.

I have been using this solution from day one in this organization.

Allen Systems Zeke/Zebb had issues, and was being sold to different companies at the time. The product did not move forward.

We previously had Maestro for scheduling the distributed environment and CA7 for scheduling the mainframe environment.

We knew it was time to invest in a new solution because we were having multiple abends every day. We were having like 5-10 abends every day, and we would have to restart them continuously. We talked to CA support, and they were telling us that that's not right and that we needed to add some new parameters to help with this process. We thought it was something on our side, and we did check with our guys on our floors with the different windows, the different agents. It turned out it was just something that could be fixed in ESP.

We were using Tidal Enterprise Scheduler. We switched over, and then had some growing pains during the transition.

Our company was using a mainframe scheduler that didn't connect to the distributed systems. We were porting to Windows and we needed a job scheduler that was Windows compatible. I'm not sure what other tools management looked at, but I know this was the best solution.

When working with a vendor, I evaluate their helpfulness and the quality of their technical support. Also important is the ease of contacting them and getting an answer back.

My company has been using the CA products for years, since the start of the company itself. As our company grows, we have been growing with CA as well.

Back in 2006, we were using CA-7 and we were looking for a product that would do better for scheduling off-platform. We found ESP, which was at that time owned by Cybermation, and we completed migration from CA-7 to ESP, and then shortly after that CA bought ESP. It had to do with scheduling on the distributed platform.

CA-7 was expensive and didn't do distributive work load very well. It was not that flexible. It didn't do everything we needed it to do.

We were using a similar product before 2008, BMC Control-M. We know that's the way we need to manage the work.

We were using CA Scheduler Job Management and I think they ended support. I wasn't high enough up to be involved in the decision making process. By the time this solution rolled out, I was happy with how I was able to get up to speed in the product, and support what I needed to support. But I was not involved in evaluating other products.

We had AutoSys 3.4 which used to belong to Platinum Technologies, they became part of CA. I'm thinking right now compared to what it was like then back in 2004, the number of jobs was very, very small, but we knew that as we went forward with CA with the new releases that it would grow very easily with that and meet the demand, which it has done, and we don't see any problem, any limit to the software at this point.

Old solution did not have a distributed support model that was robust enough.

Our old product that we had with SAP was more of a manual process, but our company is going to more automation-based products. That was our main need, to get rid of the manual labor and, instead, just use the automated process.

We tried BMC, CA, and IBM. We tried IBM OMEGAMON for a very long time, 20+ years. CA offers SYSVIEW.

The previous solution was very difficult to manage. The monitoring required somebody to be hands on. 

We have not used any other solution before. We've been using this product for a long time.

It's a requirement for all large corporations to have some type of enterprise scheduler. We went with CA because they are a good partner, and they're pretty stable, and they acquire everybody else. They only have two main competitors, IBM or BMC.

Yes, CA Scheduler, at that time. I think they were dropping support for CA Scheduler.

I've always been using it, so there was no previous solution.

I have used other solutions similar to AutoSys Workload Automation. 

We used punch cards back in 70s and 80s. This is the solution that took over from IBM punch cards.

Jobtrac. We switched because of a contractual dispute.

We were being pushed by BMC, and CA came forth and gave us a lower cost solution.

We previously used a different solution. We consolidated into a strategic scheduling product because it is easier to manage and operate.

Our old solution was losing its ability to scale. As our organization was changing, we needed a product that could change with us, and CA Workload Automation seems to be the right tool.

We chose this product for its scalability and its reliability, and the fact that it can run our business solutions on multiple platforms, in concert with one another. It can run an object on our Windows systems or our Unix systems, and then send messages to the other system when they are complete.

We had to choose an alternate scheduling tool.

We had scheduled jobs on a mainframe system. By replacing the mainframe with a Unix system, we also changed the scheduler.

We had already had some other CA technologies, so it was a good fit and we knew what we were dealing with.

We switched from Burroughs to IBM, previously.

We previously used SQL but that solution is very limited.

I am using Stonebranch Universal Automation Center alongside this solution.