Speak to a rep about your business needs
See our product support options
General inquiries and locations
Contact us
Redirecting…
Based on your browser's settings, we noticed you might prefer to view this site in a different language.
We use AI tools to help make our content available in multiple languages. Because these translations are automated, there may be some variation between the English and translated versions. The English version of this content is the official version. Contact BMC to talk to an expert who can answer any questions you may have.
Orchestrate financial close, EOD, and BOD workflows with predictability, auditability, and no disruption to systems of record.
EOD, close, and BOD run as one connected process across SAP, mainframe, and cloud environments, but most tools only manage pieces of that process.
Orchestration platforms like Control‑M make those cross-system dependencies visible and manageable, so teams can run financial close predictably without changing systems of record.
Financial close is often managed with platform-native schedulers, task checklists, or finance-specific close tools. These approaches work within systems, but not across them.
Common limitations include:
Native schedulers only see their own platform
Cross system handoffs are hard coded, brittle, or handled out of band
SLAs are monitored after they’re missed
Audit evidence is fragmented across tools and teams
Takeaway: Closing faster matters less than closing predictably. And predictability breaks at system boundaries.
This example focuses on pre-market reporting, but demonstrates the orchestration, SLA management, and auditability required for financial close.
The Problem: Keeping Time-Critical Work on Track as Volume Climbs
Company growth and the rapid rollout of new business services strained Raymond James Financial’s highly automated workflows. Hundreds of thousands of reports had to be delivered before market open, and one application alone drove nearly 40% of daily workflows. The team needed a way to scale without missing SLAs or creating compliance risk.
What Changed: Centralizing Control and Reducing Workload Complexity
Raymond James standardized on Control‑M to manage workflows across 700+ applications, giving teams clear visibility into dependencies and execution. File transfers were consolidated, and business users gained self-service tools to run and monitor their own workflows. Cyclical processing reduced job volume by grouping repeat transfers, improving throughput and making issues easier to recover from.
The Result: More Throughput, Less Overhead
The team scaled workflow volume without adding operational strain. Individual file transfer jobs dropped by 80%, service requests fell by 60%, and audit prep time was reduced from weeks to one day.
Chris Haynes
associate director of IT operations services at Raymond James Financial.
To manage financial close predictably across systems, look for how orchestration handles the points where delays and risk actually arise:
If workflows rely on fixed schedules and downstream delays occur when upstream steps run late
Then look for dependencies that should progress based on events and data readiness
If visibility stops at system boundaries and downstream impact is hard to trace
If visibility stops at system boundaries and downstream impact is hard to trace
If SLA risk only becomes visible after delays occur
Then look for early risk detection before downstream processes are impacted
If failures require manual intervention and delays compound during recovery
Then look for automated retries and recovery for common failure scenarios
If audit evidence is spread across systems and reconciliation is manual
Then look for centralized audit evidence, even when execution remains distributed
Control‑M addresses these requirements across three key capabilities:
Event Driven EOD, Close, and BOD Coordination
Control-M advances workflows based on actual completion and data readiness, not fixed schedules—across SAP, mainframe, distributed systems, and cloud services.
End to End Visibility with Predictive SLA Control
Teams see financial close as a single process, with visibility into dependencies, downstream impact, and SLA risk before delays spread.
Centralized Control Without Changing Execution
Jobs continue to run on systems of record. Control-M centralizes orchestration logic, access control, and audit trails without disrupting execution.
In most environments:
These processes operate as a single financial close workflow but are typically managed across separate systems.
Control‑M orchestrates SAP and AWS as one end‑to‑end financial close process, without forcing architectural change.
With Control‑M, teams can:
This allows SAP-based financial close processes to extend into AWS incrementally, without reengineering SAP or fragmenting orchestration across multiple tools.
No. SAP continues to execute SAP jobs. Control‑M coordinates dependencies across SAP and non-SAP systems without replacing SAP schedulers.
Yes. Control‑M advances workflows when SAP steps complete or when required data becomes available, triggering AWS-based processing automatically.
No. Existing SAP job logic, sequencing, and close processes remain unchanged.
Control‑M tracks SLA risk across the full workflow, providing visibility into downstream impact before delays affect dependent processes.
Control‑M provides a centralized, time-stamped audit trail across SAP, AWS, and downstream systems, making it easier to track execution and produce audit evidence.
No. SAP continues to execute SAP jobs. Control‑M coordinates dependencies across SAP and non-SAP systems without replacing SAP schedulers.
Yes. Control‑M advances workflows when SAP steps complete or when required data becomes available, triggering AWS-based processing automatically.
No. Existing SAP job logic, sequencing, and close processes remain unchanged.
Control‑M tracks SLA risk across the full workflow, providing visibility into downstream impact before delays affect dependent processes.
Control‑M provides a centralized, time-stamped audit trail across SAP, AWS, and downstream systems, making it easier to track execution and produce audit evidence.
Control-M is a good fit when:
Control-M may be less critical when:
| Capability | Task / Checklist Tools | Control-M |
|---|---|---|
| Workflow visibility | Step level | End to end |
| Platform scope | Single system | Hybrid & multi cloud |
| SLA management | Reactive | Predictive |
| Failure recovery | Manual | Automated |
| Audit readiness | Fragmented | Centralized |
See how Control-M manages dependencies, predicts SLA risk, and automates recovery across SAP, legacy systems, and cloud platforms.