Universal Automation Center

My main use case for Stonebranch  is job automation.

A specific example of how I use Stonebranch  for job automation in my day-to-day work is that we have workflows that need to be executed on another application and we use Stonebranch to facilitate this. We have daily batches which need to be executed and we use Stonebranch to automate those batch runs. These jobs include file watchers, and then loading the data from those files to our database, and then executing some reports, executing some jobs that trigger the reporting workflows in the underlying application to process the data from those files. We process all the data that was loaded into the application to generate regulatory reports, which will be used by the regulatory team to file the reports to the regulators.

The best feature Stonebranch offers, according to me, is the simplicity of usage. Although it is quite basic, the job runs are quite robust. I have felt that it is quite reliable.

I would like to add that the alerting, specifically job failure alerts, successful notifications, and the timeout alerts are good, but I felt that these are manually set and could be improved with more intelligence built into the application itself. Stonebranch is quite basic and relies on manual inputs most of the time.

I believe Stonebranch has positively impacted my organization by taking off the load of running all those jobs manually to generate all these reports. I believe the organization might have previously used some schedulers within UNIX, such as a cron tab to run all these jobs. The File Watcher functionality and the Task Monitor functionality in Stonebranch might have been the biggest contributor or functionality which would have triggered my organization to switch to Stonebranch. The UI is quite good.

I believe Stonebranch can be improved by making it more modern in terms of adding new jobs, as the look and feel of the application is very basic and the UI can be improved.

What holds me back from rating it higher is that the UI could be much simpler. The menu options can be improved by putting a hamburger menu on the left-hand side to see all the services that are provided. It is often difficult to locate the service that you are looking for. They could add a search function for the services that we are looking for. For example, variables cannot be searched for directly. We have to fetch variables from the list that automatically comes on the screen. The UI needs improvement.

I have worked as an L3 Production Support for almost three years.

Stonebranch's stability is good.

I would advise others looking into using Stonebranch to go for it, as it is reliable and gets the job done.

Regarding Stonebranch's AI capabilities, I think its accuracy and reliability of output is good. I have never doubted it once. I have never had a scenario where it gave a false output or an unexpected output. Everything has been as expected. I rate this product a 7 out of 10.

My main use case for Stonebranch  involves transferring files to upstream or downstream systems, as I work for Mainframe technology. We used to transfer the supplier-related files or the order-related files, and also receive the files from customers such as distributors or dealers and send the files to suppliers. File transfer was the main work which I have dealt with.

A recent specific example of how I use Stonebranch  for a file transfer task is in Toyota, where our application is a new part application dealing with the accessories parts of Toyota vehicles. We used to get orders from customers, who are basically distributors or dealers, and they used to send orders in batches and in files. Those files are very large, and those are the orders we receive from customers, while a few are the orders we place towards the supplier, such as purchase orders. In those cases, we used to send files to suppliers, and to send or receive the files, we use Stonebranch for the file transfer. Our AS/400 system also uses Stonebranch to send files to the Mainframe system and vice versa.

I also want to add that in a project where we are modernizing the legacy application to a new and modern system, we are using Stonebranch to send files to the new system from the legacy systems and also receive files from them. Stonebranch is used as the file system medium; it is very important for our application to send and receive files, thus playing a very important role for us.

Right now, what I can recall as the best features Stonebranch offers is that it bridges the gap between old legacy systems and modern cloud storage systems such as AWS  S3  or Azure  Blob, letting us track a file's entire life cycle from one UI. It can really handle very big files without limitation; we have never felt any issue handling very big files. It is a very big plus point. I would also add that it has good fault-tolerant delivery; if a network glitch occurs between a local plant server and the central Mainframe, then Stonebranch features auto restart and checkpoint restart capabilities to pick up basically where it left off, not from the start, which saves time and prevents failures.

The checkpoint restart capability has helped our team significantly, especially since our application is very old and we have a support team that is highly dependent on Stonebranch. At night, we have very large batches that run, and if a file transfer fails, it can cause a huge loss to the company. Stonebranch's features, such as auto restart and checkpoint restart, help to start the process from the point where it failed, not from the start, saving us time. In Toyota, everything depends on time; even a minute's delay can lead to a lot of loss. This capability helps the support team avoid high-priority tickets and saves the company from losses.

Stonebranch has made a difference in terms of time saved, primarily due to the checkpoint restart and auto restart features that help in saving time. It also leads to cost savings; if a file is half processed and other orders are not processed, it can cause significant losses. These features in Stonebranch help us save costs for the company and reduce delays, which can again lead to losses. We transfer files to AS/400 through Stonebranch, and if a delivery instruction reaches AS/400 late, the truck will wait at the depot, causing orders not to reach on time. Such delays would cost the company a significant amount of money.

I think Stonebranch could be improved by creating a command line tool so that Mainframe teams can control everything without using a web browser. This would help us quickly address issues as Mainframe users are accustomed to the command line. If Stonebranch can send all failure alerts directly to Mainframe's SDSF screens, it would also help us debug faster and reduce our need to contact Stonebranch team repeatedly for any issues. Building automated templates that instantly recognize Mainframe data structures, known as copybooks, without requiring data engineers to manually set up fresh translation metadata arrays for every new inbound file type is another improvement I can recall.

I have been using Stonebranch for a very long time, for nine years.

Stonebranch is stable; we have been using it for a very long time. As I already mentioned, I have been using it for nine years.

The customer support is good; whenever we had any issue, they immediately addressed it and tried to get it resolved.

As I mentioned, Stonebranch helps us a lot in file transfer because I am from the Mainframe team, and every file transfer involves Stonebranch. We are also using Stonebranch in the modernization project for every file transfer between the legacy system and the modern system. This is my perspective based on my work experience, although there are many other areas in Toyota where Stonebranch is used that I am not fully aware of.

My advice for others looking into using Stonebranch is that they should use it for file transfers because it is very reliable and has inbuilt capabilities that help any organization perform file transfers effectively. Even if something breaks in between, Stonebranch has the capability to fix that and complete the file transfer process. Big organizations rely heavily on these transfers; as I mentioned, in Toyota we are consistently sending and receiving files to multiple upstream and downstream systems, and we are heavily dependent on Stonebranch without any issues, and we have never considered replacing it with any other platform.

Stonebranch is a very good product, and I would definitely recommend it. I gave this product a rating of eight.

We use Stonebranch  for our enterprise workload automation and orchestration because we are a fintech, and all of the data we have, all of the application-related jobs, and all of our automated workflows are managed through Stonebranch .

What I appreciate about Stonebranch is mainly the UI experience, which is easy to use and allows for user-friendly creation of all tasks and workflows, along with lightweight agents and easy-to-use integrations.

The benefits of integrating Stonebranch with third-party applications include having observability ITSM  tools to audit and resolve critical job failures, the ability to automate tasks through REST APIs for COTS products, and using orchestration for self-remediation or diagnostics, making it versatile for various repetitive tasks beyond just batch jobs.

Stonebranch's workload automation with cross-environment job dependencies has streamlined our processes significantly, as we operate in a multi-cloud environment with existing data centers. The orchestration acts as a controller, facilitating communication across systems without needing individual systems to talk to each other, thus easing orchestration processes whether in a single or multi-environment.

Stonebranch's compliance and security features play a crucial role in our workload automation from a governance perspective, as we are a fintech that needs to monitor controls to prevent potential SLA breaches when jobs are delayed.

The key benefits of using Stonebranch that improve our organization's functionality include the numerous integrations provided by Stonebranch that continue to get updated, the flexible licensing model that can yield significant benefits through Enterprise License Agreements, allowing for many features to be bundled within a single solution, and positive impacts on upgrade processes, vulnerability remediation, and the responsive support from our Customer Success Manager.

From an improvement perspective, since everything is moving towards the cloud and AI, the integrations with Stonebranch need to be accelerated. Stonebranch does provide SDKs for building our own integrations, but they need to enhance this further as the market evolves.

A few features we would like to see included in Stonebranch are improvements to reporting capabilities, specifically the ability to pull an entire workflow into a single report seamlessly. Stonebranch has mentioned they are developing a new solution called the reporting database to address these limitations.

I have been working with Stonebranch for the last four years.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the tech support and customer service of Stonebranch around eight or nine.

Before Stonebranch, we used Broadcom's AutoSys and several other individual schedulers including the Windows Task Scheduler, cron job, Visual Cron, and Ab Initio Control Center, among many more.

The initial setup of Stonebranch was challenging because it was not widely known in the market. However, through professional services, Stonebranch helped train our team and facilitated the migration process. While the migration did have challenges, Stonebranch was able to fix issues that arose during the migration.

We have seen a return on investment with Stonebranch, as the centralization of all jobs has reduced overall efforts, although it is not directly equating to a cost reduction. We are meeting our audit requirements and are close to achieving full ROI.

In evaluating other solutions before choosing Stonebranch, we assessed at least twelve to thirteen market products and finally  considered three solutions: Stonebranch, JAMS  Scheduler, and a Redwood product, among a few others.

The key differences between Stonebranch and the Redwood solution or JAMS  Scheduler include the fact that some solutions did not support our Solaris environment, cost factors, technical capabilities, compliance with our fintech regulations and policies, and resource utilization. We needed lightweight agents versus heavy ones running across our systems, which helped us select features that meet ninety to ninety-five percent of our requirements.

Based on my experience with Stonebranch, I would advise other organizations to find value in their customer-friendly approach that supports necessary customizations. During our extensive nine-month proof of concept, the support and service provided after the sale has remained high, ensuring we got what we needed even post-implementation.

Overall, I would rate Stonebranch as a product or solution an eight out of ten. I believe Stonebranch needs to expand further into the infrastructure automation space.