2018-07-08T08:03:00Z

What needs improvement with Control-M?


Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Control-M.

What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?

Guest
1414 Answers

author avatar
Top 20Real User

The Web interface is coming along but still has some missing pieces. Today, you must still rely on the full GUI client to do everything you need. The next major release needs to focus on the lightweight web client. I'd also like to see more out of the box support for Docker, etc.

2019-08-21T01:50:00Z
author avatar
Real User

MFT needs some more polishing. We ran into problems a few times & struggled to get them sorted in time. But, BMC gave their full support to us at such times. APIs are not there one hundred percent yet, but BMC just adopted a monthly release mechanism for APIs. I can see that they are on it full time. Inbuilt integration with Connect Direct could be helpful. A developer sandbox could be very helpful to try out new features or experience them. Application Integrator can be helpful, although I don't see many templates being built by BMC experts. The hub that is available is mostly user-dependent.

2019-08-15T09:48:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

Control-M MFT and Control-M API both need improvement. The Control-M MFT has to support checksums for FTP transfer between our own Control-M agents. The Control-M API does not support SQL database-type jobs, where a job has been configured to use the SQL catalog to locate SSIS. BIM needs further improvement to include any dynamic-type jobs with the workflow. The support and bug fix timeline need improvement.

2019-08-01T09:10:00Z
author avatar
Real User

The company has been working with BMC on the MFT. There are still some things about MFT which don't work the way that we want with our needs. So, we would like to see that improved. While the solution has affected the collaboration between our development and operations within our company, there is a need and opportunity to further that relationship with the use of this tool, so the enterprise uses it on all platforms. We will get there, but we are just not there yet.

2019-06-12T13:17:00Z
author avatar
Real User

The reporting tool still needs a lot of improvement. It was supposed to get better with the upgrade, and it really didn't get better. Its reporting aspects are poor, and management always wants to know things. It is sort of hard to get at tangible numbers without doing a lot of additional work outside of the system. It needs help, because it's such a useful thing to have. It needs to be more powerful and easier to use. Our users always want access to the database directly, so they can do their own queries and pull their own data. However, there really isn't a tool that we can give them that does what they want, and we don't give access to our production database. Although, in our new infrastructure, we are setting it up so we have a mirrored one where they can run queries, because there has been so much demand. Though, it would be nice if there was a tool within Control-M so people wouldn't be asking for this. I don't want to have to reach out to a third-party application company to do automated notifications of any form. Right now, we still have people manually calling people and emailing people. They should have built-in integration for better notifications using an API, similar to what xMatters offers.

2019-06-12T13:17:00Z
author avatar
Real User

The reporting tool needs a major-league upgrade. I also would like not to have to reach out to a third-party application company to do automated notifications. Right now, we still have people manually calling people and emailing people. There's a company called xMatters - and there are others - that has an API through Control-M that can automate any aspect of failure management. I'd like to see it build right into the product. I'd like to see a better notification product.

2019-06-12T13:17:00Z
author avatar
Real User

They have Workload Change Manager, and I would like to see a little more of that. Being in the business that we're in, there's a lot of hesitance. We are very hesitant to change things in the banking industry. It isn't bleeding edge by any means. Getting people to buy into things is sort of the hard part, because everybody wants their money to be handled properly.

2019-06-12T13:17:00Z
author avatar
Real User

I'm not sure how the solution fits together with our business modernization initiatives, as there are things outside of my area, even though Control-M is the scheduling tool of the company. They may use other things, e.g., Big Data.

2019-06-12T13:17:00Z
author avatar
Real User

I would like to see the ease of upgrades improved, although they may have addressed that. We're still at an early version, but we plan to get to the latest and greatest very soon, where we can take advantage of easy upgrades. Their technicians should be more involved when we're applying new technology to Control-M, such as cloud. We're working with cloud right now, with AWS, and getting the attention of a technician, sometimes, can take some time. It would be nice if they had somebody assigned to it. Dedicated support.

2019-06-12T13:17:00Z
author avatar
Real User

We would recommend modernizing the look and feel of Control-M. They also need to move towards more self-service and development in their environment. It's very antiquated. Opening up to more open source tools and switching the connectivity to additional tools would also be improvements. Most of the tools that are available with Control-M are antiquated. The self-service is currently not as function-rich as competitors. Control-M is not the best.

2019-05-20T07:59:00Z
author avatar
Top 20PopularReal User

One feature I would like to include is in the middle of the monitoring domain. In the monitoring domain, if I have to update a number of jobs, the only way to do it is by manually clicking on each job. I would like a feature that allows me to do a mass update in the jobs, which I feel is still lacking. This version has done an amazing change, compared to version 7 and the versions after that. I'm not sure what they should change at this stage. One recent feature they have come up with is if we can upgrade Control-M agents from a central location. I would still prefer a solution where I can do an installation of the controller module from a remote distance. That's something they don't have. I know why it has still not come up, but it could be a great feature if we could include that somehow. To push out these sort of installation setup files onto another machine and get it in installed. It is not there for now, though. I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. The reason for this rating is because of the scope of implementation. It will have an ultimately upper hand to the other tools in the market. They can show what most other controls don't have. Nevertheless, these features would really help as well. I would like to see more of them.

2019-05-15T05:16:00Z
author avatar
User

* A smartphone interface would be welcome. * Finding documentation on the website can be a bit confusing.

2018-10-15T13:24:00Z
author avatar
Vendor

I would like to see automatic license management. And probably more importantly, some kind of machine learning to help identify the optimum automation path.

2018-08-09T07:01:00Z
author avatar
Real User

I don't think that we're actually looking for new features. I think we are more looking for a better cost/license/performance model because BMC, while we could say it's the best, is also the most expensive.

2018-07-08T08:03:00Z
Learn what your peers think about Control-M. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2020.
442,194 professionals have used our research since 2012.