Skip to Main Content

This is an IBM Automation portal for Integration products. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (

Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,

Post your ideas
  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.

Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM. - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

Status Not under consideration
Created by Guest
Created on Dec 15, 2023

MQ search filters with embedded splat

Most should benefit with the splat '*' in the middle of the search rather than the end only. ISPF Panel 3.4 offers ABC.**.XYZ or ABC.*.*.XYZ or ABC.*.XYZ or *.ABC.* as various search options. The use of splat would allow for grouping of MQ results. I would like to see all Queues or Channels or Processes ending with ABC or those with XYZ within the names. This would very beneficial especially when using the MQ Explorer to compare information when the items are similar, but the prefix is different.

Idea priority Medium
  • Admin
    Mark Taylor
    Jan 9, 2024

    We recognise that this is a valid requirement. However it doesn't fit with our prioritised delivery plans for the next couple of years.

    As a result we are declining this Idea. While declined the Idea can still be voted, and commented, upon.