Before working with IBM Tivoli Workload Automation I worked with Control-M from BMC. 

The main differences and advantages of Control-M are mostly to do with the operator interface. The console that the operator is using is quite a bit better in Control-M rather than Tivoli, and so is the way to schedule and make the relationships between jobs.  

We’ve supported numerous solutions at our firm, such as CA7, Control-M, Zeke. We chose to standardize on TWS for a number of reasons, including the fact that TWS hosted the majority of our workloads relative to other solutions, we possessed ample resources who specialized in TWS over others, and TWS best met the needs of our business.

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

I am currently supporting both IWA and CA-7 while my company decides on which direction to go forward.

We have not used any other solution. Although, we've upgraded 3 times.

No

We did not previously use a different solution. We started implementing a WLA infrastructure in 1996 and bought the Maestro 7 product from Unison. That product evolved into TWS 8.2 / 8.3 / 8.5.1 / 8.6.

We used BMC Control-M first, but later we changed to TWS due to its efficiency, accuracy and scalability.

We used Windows Task Scheduler. We switched because the new SSIS servers were going to be managed servers.

I have been consistently using Tivoli Workload Scheduler as a one stop solution for my various client's job scheduling and automation needs, so I am not aware of any previous solutions.

I have not used a previous solution. TWS was already in use when I started working here.

I started out with implementing the TWS solution only.

Initially, we were using a home-grown product that didn't scale as well and had no ability for cross-product automation.