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. 

Compared with the other primary workload automation solution we use at our firm, CA’s Autosys, which is a purely event-triggered scheduler, the limitation with a purely event triggered scheduler is you must have round-the-clock expert analysts to support 24x7 operations For example, if a new deployment must be installed on a weekend at an odd hour, someone must be available at that specific time to support the activity, load JIL files to the database, etc. There are ways around this limitation, but it requires additional engineering or add-on products, which can be costly. Autosys does feature some advantages over TWS in other areas, which is why it remains a staple solution at our firm.

However, to continue the point, with a plan-based scheduler such as TWS, the scheduler is composed of two unique elements, a Long Term Plan (LTP) and a Current Plan (CP). The LTP is essentially a long-range forecast of future schedules, and the CP contains the present day’s schedule. That configuration enables schedule changes to be staged well in advance and stored in the LTP where they take effect in the CP for the specified implementation date, while the CPs leading up to the change remain unaffected. In a large organization like the one I work at, where we employ a full-scale global command center to support BAU operations, TWS allows us to scale back on expert scheduling resources and have them work a traditional 9-to-5 work day because virtually all deployments can be supported during normal business hours. And our command center employees, who are generally paid less than expert schedulers, look after day-to-day, 24x7 operations.

Not applicable. I have used IWA, CA-7, Control-M, and Zeke in the past.

We looked at other solutions namely Skybot by HelpSystems, Tidal by Cisco, CA-7 from Computer Associates and Control-M by BMC.

No

We considered starting with Redwood Cronacle for WLA on SAP, but decided to stay with TWS because of the better integration between SAP and non-SAP workloads, and the minimal amount of effort we had to put into education.

This was the new corporate standard and we were not given a choice.

I’ve used BMC Control-M in the past, at another company.

The alternatives in this category of products are not many. BMC Control-M and CA Autosys and another job scheduler from Tidal are the major ones. I have evaluated BMC and CA, both are equally capable and perform wonderfully well, the one advantage IBM has over its counterparts is its capabilities with mainframe scheduling for a very long time. Most old companies have had mainframes for 2-3 decades now and IBM integrates seamlessly across their legacy mainframe as well as the newer distributed setups.

I did not evaluate other products as TWS was already in use when I started working here.

Things shifted after I joined. They evaluated Control-M and decided to pursue Control-M and discontinue use of TWS. Control-M had a far superior user interface and also had a notification system which TWS lacked.

We did not evaluate other solutions.

I did not evaluate other products before choosing this one. However, they are asking us to look at other solutions, due to cost for licensing the TWS product.