It's beneficial because it also ties into other CA products that we have. It makes it a really good fit.

It has benefited our organization by the automatic JES2 spool cleanup based on multiple filter criteria.

It makes life easier because if you are experienced enough you can find any problems and resolve them easily. Thus, making the machine more reliable and stable.

When we changed to JES3, the programmers didn't have to know anything. The product provided the same interface with the same look and feel.

Ultimately, the prevention of money loss for missing SOAs and stuff like that on our systems, if we miss something. 

Anybody has the ability to be able to find something that might be wrong, and look through it.

Thresholds with alerts are valuable, enabling us to fix a problem before it has an impact.

It's intuitive to use and you don't need a lot of expertise, but you need to know how to manage it.

Several times it saved us tens of thousands of Euros by tremendously reducing the time necessary to solve a severe operating system problem.

It integrates very nicely with other products from CA, like OPS/MVS, and it's easy to learn.

The benefits are kind of what we are looking for. We are not there yet, and end-to-end, we are trying to tie it up with our distributive apps to match them up with the mainframe apps. Therefore, everything is tied through one single pane of glass.

We have automated the monitoring of our CICS regions and CICS transactions. This leaves much less manual monitoring for the CICS people than before.

It performs exactly as we have it customized. We have never had a problem with it. It is always well-maintained and it does everything we ask for it to do.

It is easy to navigate through. It has a lot of features and functions to it, so people can do their jobs. 

One of the most important usage for us is implementation of alarms based on product-provided metrics (especially on loops). In CICS monitoring area, we even use autocancel functions based on threshold settings.

It pulls together a lot of utilities provided by other tools/products into one consistent umbrella.

We have not had any major issues in approximately 15 years.

It's quicker to get information, it saves time.

• It's easier to diagnose problems, and find solutions
• Interoperability with CA-OPS allows for more automation.

We can easily monitor any batch and CICS event, and this assures us in times of very high workload.

We are targeting the standardization of our mainframe system monitoring product for clients and CA SYSVIEW is our first option, and packaged into our total solution for our mainframe service. Our client can use this product without additional cost while other products additional costs.

It provides much more info regarding the mainframe and interfaces, with ease of use (menus); has many more options available compared to the previous product.

It's really great to be able to compare historical reports, as it really helps our organizational functions. This feature is hard to find in other products.

It gives an indication of potential performance bottlenecks.

I wouldn't say that it's improved the way we function, but that doesn’t mean it won’t and we really feel that so far it’s working well.

Using SYSVIEW means we have to bug our tech support a lot less. It lets us see what’s running, what conflict we have in jobs, and where we don’t have to bother.

We particularly like the versatility of the product. It can be used in REXX, batch or interacting with automation, CA-OPS/MVS interaction is particularly good. For example, OPS/MVS will trigger events that will check SMS storage groups through SYSVIEW and email reports on volume information