ActiveBatch → Control-M

Migrating to Control-M from ActiveBatch.

ActiveBatch Jobs, Plans, and date schemes translate into Control-M’s Job and Folder model. Job-step composition translates cleanly. Calendars and audit-trail expectations are where the work goes.

Concept-by-concept

What changes, what stays the same.

Three paths, one destination

Engagement shaped to your team. Methodology comes from BMC.

Every ActiveBatch-to-Control-M conversion runs on BMC’s proven methodology. The engagement model is the part we shape with you.

Advisory. Your team leads. We coach your conversion-rule design in the Control-M Self Conversion Tool, review outputs, and stay close through validation and cutover.
Blended — where most engagements run. Your team owns the parts where you want to stay close. Our ActiveBatch-experienced team owns the parts where deep Control-M expertise pays off. The line moves as the project moves.
Comprehensive. We run the conversion end to end using the Control-M Conversion Tool, while your team stays focused on day-to-day operations.

WayPoint accelerates the assessment phase across all three paths. ActiveBatch Jobs, Plans, and Date Schemes translate cleanly. The variance lives in custom Service Library entries, inline PowerShell or .NET scripts, and Constraint definitions.

The structure is BMC’s. The shape of the engagement is yours.

What the assessment looks like

Sample WayPoint output.

What drives the work

Scope and timeline are confirmed in the assessment.

Job count is a poor proxy for migration effort. The drivers on a ActiveBatch-to-Control-M conversion are calendar complexity, dependency density, and the number of application owners who sign off in parallel test. WayPoint scores all three before the engagement is scoped.

Frequently asked

ActiveBatch → Control-M questions.

How does Control-M handle ActiveBatch’s job-step model?

ActiveBatch’s job-step composition — multiple steps inside a single Job — flattens into a linked set of Jobs within a Control-M Folder. The execution semantics are preserved. The artifact count grows, but each artifact is more granular and easier to monitor.

What happens to our inline PowerShell or .NET scripts?

They get reviewed individually in the assessment phase. Most can be lifted-and-shifted into Control-M Application Plug-ins or as Auto-Edit Variable-driven submissions. A small percentage need rework — usually because the script is doing work that fits better as a Control-M-native pattern.

Can we keep our audit-trail continuity for compliance?

Yes. Control-M Workload Archiving has equivalent retention and query capability. Audit-trail mapping is part of the assessment phase and is signed off by the compliance owner before cutover.

Get an ActiveBatch-to-Control-M assessment.