I have been using QSI now for 18 months or so and have had some good resolts / feedback as well as some not-so-good gliches.
Anyone else got any comments on QSI??

To me MPACT has been hard to learn but easy to use. For all those current MPACT users, how does the new current Diamler/Chrysler memo sound that will be requiring access to the Powerway software for AQP activities?

ASD...

As a former QE commissioned with the task of managing engineering changes and how these changes affect current projects and then being able to access existing data within the database for new business, most of my prior experiences fell into one of two camps. First, compiling data from old projects and secondly, utilizing existing information in the database. I have spoken with former users of QSI, Powerway, and much lastly MPACT, of which I have about a year and a half experience with MPACT, and have found that QSI's software fares about a 5.5 on a scale of one to ten. The other softwares, mentioned above, fall slightly higher or lower than QSI's. While not familiar with your specific dislikes, I would imagine that they are similar to those which others have posted here.

Being fairly versed with the majority of the database softwares available on the market, my first choice among all is a product called AutoDCP. While its many strengths are too numerous to elaborate here, I will give one brief example from a time/cost saving s example. A series of changes which were required to existing projects with MPACT (using their 2k version), amounted to just under 8 hours of work mainly due to the muliple clicks and menus required to change various process steps across the board. Using the same database before the changes were made in MPACT, these changes were done in twenty minutes in AutoDCP. So, if your interested in a very user-friendly software that saves time and most if not all seem to want to use, give AutoDCP a try. You can probably find them by doing a search for the product name using Dogpile as a search engine.

Thanks for the details, Thoron! :thedeal:

What version of QSI are you using, Les? My organization is currently on 5.6 and we were to cut over to 5.7 just before the New Year.

Unfortunately, extensive testing on our part has led us to make a few conclusions:

1) Never modify QSI...not only does it limit how much support the Help Desk can (and will) provide you with, but it makes cutting over to another release sheer torture!

2) Just when you think you've learned all there is to learn about a new release...WHAM!...something new crops up.

3) Never assume that the entire programme has been tested fully by the manufacturer. I've lost track of how many "features" we've discovered.

It is now February and we're still not ready to cut over to 5.7. Certain information (thanks to the mod's that my organization made) is not being transferred properly.

Let's talk about special characters, too. QSI will not allow you to use certain characters in the title. "-", ",", ">", ":", ";", and so on...all the good and useful ones. This makes your titles difficult to read, I find. Example: "Proper Handling Storage Packaging Preservation Methods in the Warehouse" :confused: It occasionally takes two or three attempts at a title before one fully understands its designation.

To top it all off, 5.7.1 is due to come out in mid-March (according to my contact at QSI).:frust:

I think that QSI does have some good features such as the Self-Training option for documentation in the Approved-Unreleased dB, the Document Change Request process has been streamlined beautifully, and the Paper Distribution Record aspect has become more user-friendly.

There is still room for improvement, though, with this software. The majority of my headaches prompted during our testing of 5.7 could have been averted if the manufacturer had done a more extensive job of testing their own product.

I must have missed that response, so I don't think I will get an answer from Thoron, but I will continue in any event.

I would be interested to hear from users of the above listed software because I have had some varying results. As a user of MPACT I would like to hear about anybody else having to take 8 hours to revise a project, and if it did what were the changes they were attempting.

I have found MPACT to be easy to work with as it utilizes relational databases to ensure changes to one area are carried over to other areas. e.g. If I change a characteristic it will ask me if I want to change the control plan/FMEA.

Any MPACT users out there?:bigwave:

You are right about QSI RCBeyette.....we have been using System 9000 Auto/System 14000 for about a year now, and don't want to upgrade because of the modifications we have made. I guess we will have to eventually. We are using 5.6 right now.

The best thing we did was send someone to Lotus Notes Development Training, and can do all those little changes ourselves instead of calling in support at big bucks per hour.

It has helped our Document Control....so much less paper!

We are currently developing a FMEA/Control Plan database to work with QSI, since we found the one included in the package to be insufficient. It will be launching within the month, and that should completely mess up upgrading to 5.7! :vfunny:

I would like to add that the software listed here is all good software and that different companies will find that one works for them better than another. This is due to work force experience, business models, and network capabilities and configuratons.

Just a note to keep things open and above board:

Although not directly employed by ISI (MPACT) I have a referral relationship with them which I will not exploit in this arena.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

That said, I invite any software suppliers, of a like genre, to contact me with their capabilities. If there is enough response I will verify the results then design a matrix and post the outcome.:bigwave:

With all of the problems that we have encountered during this attempt to upgrade to QSI 5.7, I have been questioning what prompted this decision in the first place. Apparently, 5.6 wasn't working to well with our Intranet and our idea of "web-based documentation" was a no-go.

The decision has been made that with 5.7, we will be using QSI as un-modified as possible. Hopefully, this will not only allow future upgrades to go much more smoothly, but will also permit our operators to access documentation via the Intranet (i.e., we won't need to purchase extra Notes licenses).

I've been told that before my time here, one individual was sent away on a Lotus Notes Administrator course (different from the Development Training would be my guess). However, this individual was, IMHO, the incorrect person to attend the course as she is not responsible for any documentation maintained in QSI and is not a member of the IS Department. Guess she drew the short straw!

Good luck with your upgrade, Sporty! Any mod's or links to external documentation always seem to make upgrading quite the adventure! :biglaugh:

RE: QSI,

We have been using QSI for about 18 months as well. Because of some of the problems of upgrades we had put off the upgrades and were about three revisions behind when we "caught up" at the beginning of the year. We are currently using 5.7 and are not at all happy either with the attendent "Bugs" or the changes to the interface.
Major Bug: Since we are doing Document Audits on a yearly basis we are in the time when the first round of audits should be done. One small problem, the "Document Audit" Button which should appear has been left out of 5.7 !! After searching for it for over an hour myself I had to call Tech Support to find this out. I am not pleased with that kind of quality issue not being "hidden" on some support guys desk.
Complaints about the interface: Numerous convenient sort options were left out of this version. I won't list them all.
Has any of you tried to use the Other elements of QSI ie. Quality Plans etc.? It is not pretty, we're still using paper for those until some improvement comes along for that.
QSI has many benefits, but as was said earlier it must fit your company's application. Another issue is what kind of IT department you have and what support issues will you face if you try to "customize" it.

Hi there, Monte!

The Document Audit button (or lack thereof) feature has been fixed, I believe. QSI has developed the appropriate coding fix and you are required to install it.

We also use the HR databases, which allow us to use the self-training feature for all employees who have a Notes account.

We are currently investigating the feasibility of incorporating the following databases:
- Management Review
- Quality Objectives
- Corrective Actions
- Nonconformance Reports
- Internal Assessments/Audits
- Course Offerings

By the end of June, my department is to have completed the assessment of these databases and we will report our findings/recommendations to Management in July.

RCB,

Thanks,

We just got the fix in place for the Doc audit issue. Please post any other comments you might have on the other functions, I'd like to know how you might use them.
Another note, I talked to one of our customers today who uses QSI and they are refusing to upgrade due to the extents of their customization of the basic system. I'd like to hear from anyone who has taken a similar approach.

Thanks again,

Monte

Monte, I think Sporty might be a good person to talk to regarding the postponement of upgrading due to modifications. We made a lot of modifications to 5.6, but it was felt that 5.7 offerred new functionality that was required.

Now that we have finally upgraded to 5.7 (after 4 months of extensive testing on our end), we have left the package "as is" as much as possible. In some cases, we have added some extra filters and views, but nothing that will affect the fields or the values of the fields.

I keep hearing 5.7.1's release is imminent, too!

Hi folks,

We implemented QSI 5.6 version a little over a year ago. We received the 5.7 upgrade before our contract ran out (which was not and will not be renewed). Instead of making the upgrade and then re-doing all the modifications to the databases, we simply took all the good parts from the upgrade and added them to the 5.6 version (leaving out all the bugs).

We decided a while ago that instead of spending the yearly support fee to QSI and be stuck with the system as it is, to spend that money on a notes programmer to customize the system to our needs. Since, we have trained people in house to maintain the system and the modifications.

We have no intention of ever upgrading and we have made extensive modifications to some databases to fit our system. We are using over 70% of the databases (9000 auto + 14000). All the bugs like the caracters in the title have been fixed internally. I have found that a good notes programmer can make modifications and fix bugs in a very small amount of time. Notes programming is simple enough.

It works well for us and we are pleased with it in general.

We use the Corrective Action database and it has been great. There is an escalation process that if you assign an 8D or CAR to someone and they don't acknowledge receipt in a set amount of time (3 days), an e-mail goes out automatically to the first escalation, which here, is the CAR coordinator. If nothing is done again in 7 days or so, it goes to the department manager, and final escalation is the General Manager....This has helped with getting issues dealt with in a timely manner.
We have no plans to update to 5.7 anytime soon. With our in house Lotus Notes Developer, and some good programming on the side, there is too much customization right now to consider upgrading.
We also use nonconformance reports, supplier management, customer management and the program/parts database.
We have just started using most of the EMS databases also.
We just renewed our support, and I plan on calling them for every single issue I find...instead of our Systems department.
My calls so far have been answered quickly and I find they go out of their way to help.
:)

OK, this is an older thread, but maybe it is time to revisit???

Does anyone have or plan on getting QSI's new web based software? There are splinter groups here that want it. I think that we have worked hard to create our own system that I hate to go to something canned. Does the web version still use Lotus Notes on the back end, even though they tell us it is an open platform??? Any info is appreciated.

I'm new to QSI, we're on version 5.8.1...It doesn't seem like this program has been discussed much in the last couple of years, which is probably why I seem to be having so many issues with it. My company purchased the software about 3 years ago and it sat on the shelf for about 2 of them, within the last year we have finally begun to use it, and I have had some difficulties with it's interface and usability. I need some help understanding QSI....

What is the current status of QSI?

Do they have a strong market share in this business?

It seems that everything in it is antiquated, why is it so hard to do formatting and page setups? (compared to MS Word)

Are there any companies out there that use this software for all of their document control? and how successful are they at it?

Any help someone can give me on using this software would be great, Carl.

Welcome to the Cove, Carl! :bigwave:

I'm new to QSI, we're on version 5.8.1...It doesn't seem like this program has been discussed much in the last couple of years, which is probably why I seem to be having so many issues with it. My company purchased the software about 3 years ago and it sat on the shelf for about 2 of them, within the last year we have finally begun to use it, and I have had some difficulties with it's interface and usability. I need some help understanding QSI....

My site recently made the upgrade to 5.8.1, as well. We were on 5.7u for a while.

What is the current status of QSI?

Do you mean the software or the company?

The company QSI is now part of IBS (www.ibs-us.com)

Do they have a strong market share in this business?

Unsure...I'm more concerned about their ability to help me out when/if I have problems. That tends to be more of a crap shoot, however, since my company is rapidly expanding, we've played the card that we'd like all of our North American sites use QSI...service became a bit better.

It seems that everything in it is antiquated, why is it so hard to do formatting and page setups? (compared to MS Word)

Can't answer that. Are you on the web-based platform or Lotus Notes?

Are there any companies out there that use this software for all of their document control? and how successful are they at it?

We use QSI for our document control for our Business Management System (i.e., quality, environment and safety...finance to be added shortly). However, pretty much every document that is used (whether or not it was developed to address a requirement from a standard) is in QSI...current tally shows exactly 800 documents live in our QSI system.

Thanks for the welcome,

My company is using the lotus notes based version, I guess it works, but we are in the process of converting a lot of recording forms used for documentation into QSI.

The major problem that I am having is that our corporate office has suggested simply attaching the old Excel or Word files to the document. I have been trying to embed them into the form section of the document. I have had pretty good success, especially if it was originally in Word, however QSI doesn't seem to handle legal size at all. Do you have any legal sized documents? and how do you get them to print properly?

It's nice to see that someone else is actually using this software in the same version, I was getting nervous since my request to see how another company uses this program was met with significant resistance.

Thanks for the welcome,

I'm considering taking it back since your Sabres are trashing my darling Sens... ;) Just kidding...about the welcome...

My company is using the lotus notes based version, I guess it works, but we are in the process of converting a lot of recording forms used for documentation into QSI.

We're also on the Lotus Notes platform. Our concern with the web-based alternate was that there was some missing functionality when compared to the Lotus Notes platform.

However, we are still considering upgrading to the web-based version for...umm...political reasons.

The major problem that I am having is that our corporate office has suggested simply attaching the old Excel or Word files to the document. I have been trying to embed them into the form section of the document. I have had pretty good success, especially if it was originally in Word, however QSI doesn't seem to handle legal size at all. Do you have any legal sized documents? and how do you get them to print properly?

We embed our Word and Excel files into the FCD. As part of the document control process, FCD attachments are to have the FCD number, doc title and rev number in the footer.

We had considered developing the forms directly within the FCD template, however, we had to consider our user's needs. Some forms are filled out by hand and filling in a printed-off word doc is easier and much prettier than the FCD from QSI (i.e., all of that header information).

That being said, we do have some departments which have 11"x17" process maps in QSI (not as embedded objects but within the template). Usually seems to print off nicely when I play with page set, print set up and all of that stuff.

The only problem is when the diagram/table/chart/map is longer than the 11"x17"...then it seems to skip out on printing some information located towards the bottom of the page.

I'll be honest...embedded the objects is easier. Microsoft programs allow for more functionality with forms...and if you want electronic forms with macros, etc., it makes sense to develop them outside of QSI. You could put the FCD info in the header/footer of the form and either (a) embed the object in the FCD or (b) create a hyperlink [hotspot in QSI jargon] to the file.

It's nice to see that someone else is actually using this software in the same version, I was getting nervous since my request to see how another company uses this program was met with significant resistance.

Even if a company is not using the same version, it is reassuring to know that there are others out there using the same software. My company visited another large multinational company in Toronto that was using QSI but they were several releases behind use. We still had the opportunity to understand the modules they used, how they applied the software and how document and record controls were implemented. :)

We have been using 5.8.1, on Notes.

Carl, I have not had any problem with legal sized docs. Here is what I do currently:

Keep the document in Word or Excel for now, if you have it. You might want to print it to a .pdf file format.

Go to the Word or Excel document. Click cntl A (select all) then cntl C (copy). Go to QSi, and either open a new document or an existing one. If its existing, click Edit. Move to where the main body of the document would go (that's 5, I believe, for SOPs) and hit cntl V (paste).

Then, go down to "Associated Documents" and hit the paper clip on the tool bar. Find the Word, Excel, or .pdf document in your files and attach it. Then, underneath, type "printable version". This is especially important if you are going to continue to use printed, paper forms and checklists. Then make sure you have the header info right, and always remember to fill out and date the reason for change section before submitting the document.

QSi is not for the less than serious user. But, its complexity is rewarded with a very good system, IMO. If you have more questions, ask.

We embed our Word and Excel files into the FCD. As part of the document control process, FCD attachments are to have the FCD number, doc title and rev number in the footer.

We had considered developing the forms directly within the FCD template, however, we had to consider our user's needs. Some forms are filled out by hand and filling in a printed-off word doc is easier and much prettier than the FCD from QSI (i.e., all of that header information).

That being said, we do have some departments which have 11"x17" process maps in QSI (not as embedded objects but within the template). Usually seems to print off nicely when I play with page set, print set up and all of that stuff.

The only problem is when the diagram/table/chart/map is longer than the 11"x17"...then it seems to skip out on printing some information located towards the bottom of the page.

I'll be honest...embedded the objects is easier. Microsoft programs allow for more functionality with forms...and if you want electronic forms with macros, etc., it makes sense to develop them outside of QSI. You could put the FCD info in the header/footer of the form and either (a) embed the object in the FCD or (b) create a hyperlink [hotspot in QSI jargon] to the file.



Thanks for the great description of what you're doing, It seems that I am not doing things all that differently. I have a fear that when our corporate office needs to make some changes to documents they are going to quickly understand why their method is going to create major headaches.

I still need to play around with the legal size, it makes sense that they are not very cooperative with printing legal sized embedded objects.

Thanks again, Carl.

Go to the Word or Excel document. Click cntl A (select all) then cntl C (copy). Go to QSi, and either open a new document or an existing one. If its existing, click Edit. Move to where the main body of the document would go (that's 5, I believe, for SOPs) and hit cntl V (paste).

Then, go down to "Associated Documents" and hit the paper clip on the tool bar. Find the Word, Excel, or .pdf document in your files and attach it. Then, underneath, type "printable version". This is especially important if you are going to continue to use printed, paper forms and checklists. Then make sure you have the header info right, and always remember to fill out and date the reason for change section before submitting the document.


One of our internal requirements is to ensure that the forms revision information is printed at the bottom of the form; using the method you described how will I get the QSI revision number displayed on the bottom of the form?

Others in my company are manually keeping that information updated on the attached document, but that seems to defeat the purpose of this system and it's tracking of revision changes.

One of our internal requirements is to ensure that the forms revision information is printed at the bottom of the form; using the method you described how will I get the QSI revision number displayed on the bottom of the form?

Others in my company are manually keeping that information updated on the attached document, but that seems to defeat the purpose of this system and it's tracking of revision changes.


Carl, if you print the main view of the document you will, of course, get the rev number, date, etc. - in other words there will be a lot of things that the user may not need, other than to initially ensure that they are using the right rev number.

So, it is indeed true tht if you need the rv number to appear on the printed (Word or Excel) document, you have to maintain that number within the document itself. I don't know of any other way.

That said, it still beats the socks off of our old method...

I have a fear that when our corporate office needs to make some changes to documents they are going to quickly understand why their method is going to create major headaches.

Ahhh...Corporate. We are in a pretty comparable position. Multiple sites, corporate office, some sites ISO 9001 registered with different document control systems implemented.

At first, we struggled to keep up with the changes that Corporated made to our forms...it was definitely an exercise in paperwork!

Then Corporate started putting their forms on the company intranet. Obviously these forms do not have our document id numbers on them.

To get around this, we insert a hyperlink from an FCD with the document name to the Corporate form on the intranet. And revised our document control procedure to cover this situation (i.e., no document identification other than name).

Is there functionality within QSI to link to control plans and FMEA's?

For years we were able to get away with having a generic control plan and FMEA for our process that covered all part numbers. Now, a combination of TS requirements and the need to tailor our CP and FMEA's to specific parts, has caused an explosion of CP and FMEA's. By the end, we will have 200 - 300 individual control plan and fmea's in which 90% of the content will be the same, with 10% unique to each part.

We have been using QSI for a long time now, and are currently using version 5.8.x. Ideally, we could have everything linked so that we only have to make a change in one place. :rar:

If not, what other software are you using? I searched some threads so far but haven't found much yet.

Thanks in advance for your help. Long live the cove! :agree1: