I've about decided that if I really knew the QSI/IBS software -- I'd be a LOT better off.

Is there anyone I can dialog with.. to learn it better?

wow.. scary.. Not a single response.

OK, question. External links using the software. Preferred method is?

1) Use the paper-clip? (sample.gif is attached)

2) Use the documented method. (sample1.gif is attached also)

I have found that they BOTH have their drawbacks.. COMMENTs?.. please???

I see a real problem of how the software handles external file links.. or I am too dumb to do it right ;)

Suppose I have a WORD file. It's sitting on a share drive.

I can use the 'paperclip method' of attaching the document.

I can use the 'paste link method' of attaching the document.

Either way.. the software apparently makes an OLE image of the document.. and afterwards does not care if I modify, move or even delete the document completely. If I change the document outside of the software, the changes are not reflected. This is not good. Am I missing something here?

TD,

I don't know the software, but no, that's not good that it misses any changes using an OLE. I like the paperclip one better.

I see a real problem of how the software handles external file links.. or I am too dumb to do it right ;)

Suppose I have a WORD file. It's sitting on a share drive.

I can use the 'paperclip method' of attaching the document.

I can use the 'paste link method' of attaching the document.

Either way.. the software apparently makes an OLE image of the document.. and afterwards does not care if I modify, move or even delete the document completely. If I change the document outside of the software, the changes are not reflected. This is not good. Am I missing something here?

This is the method we use...we embed the object.


Go to 'Create' and select 'Object'
Create new: 'Object from a file'
'Browse' to locate file
Select 'Display as icon'
Select 'Change Icon'

Change icon if you want
In the 'Label' field enter in the title or document ID

Select 'Okay'
Select 'Okay'

This is the method we use...we embed the object.


Go to 'Create' and select 'Object'
Create new: 'Object from a file'
'Browse' to locate file
Select 'Display as icon'
Select 'Change Icon'

Change icon if you want
In the 'Label' field enter in the title or document ID

Select 'Okay'
Select 'Okay'



Of no added value but

Snap

So do we.

1) In the external file that you want linked, select ‘Edit, Copy’

2) Go back to the IBS/qsi software, and select ‘Edit, Paste Special’, and then ‘Paste Link to Source’, ‘Display As Icon’ and ‘Change Icon’.

3) Change the label to reflect the external file’s Title (or path/file name), and click on ‘OK’.

4) Save and Exit.

Now when you open the document, the program goes out to the external file you want linked, and updates accordingly.

I just couldn't seem to get the software to do this the way it made sense. After spending about half a day trying it 6 different ways.. the above does actually work.

I'd like to dialog this further though, pros and cons.. but hear me out, as I do my best to explain why I asked the question in the first place.

We create forms using word or excel or whatever. The people that create those forms would like to continue using the same software they used to create them to revise/modify etc.

I can paste them into a FCD formatted document within the IBS/qsi software, but unless I do it a special way (see post above, and Roxanne's post as well).. any further changes to that form are not reflected in the procedure or work instruction that references it.

All I really wanted was a simple hyperlink. We can control the forms by placing them on a shared drive, giving everyone (or as appropriate) READ access, and then give the OWNER (or 'document manager') of the document WRITE access.

IBS/qsi's stance on this was that if the form is changed, then the procedure or work instruction is changed also (to which I replied shenanigans!). Control of documents and control of records is two totally different things, and I am not going to change (e.g., REVISE) every procedure that I woefully embedded a link into, just because someone changed a column, or added some additional text.

They suggested putting all of my forms into the FCD portion of the database, and linking internally like it does (really well I might add) to QPs and WIs. Again, a really nice idea, but in the real world, I don't see it working very long. Why not just put all the forms in the same folder, and make them accessible. Some folks might argue that its six of one, and a half dozen of another, but I still say that most people would find it troublesome to open the IBS/qsi software just to print out a form I need. (What will they do? We all know what they will do; they will save it on THEIR computer somewhere.)

So I'm trying to think ahead, and make this database as maintenance-free as possible, and yet do my best to make it robust enough to handle what humans invariably do; i.e., follow the path of least resistance.

And thus, my need for a manageable way to handle external links that made sense.

"Don't you use the Records List Database module in QSI?"
__________________
~ Roxane ~

I still don't know where THAT is. Help.. please? ;)

"Don't you use the Records List Database module in QSI?"
__________________
~ Roxane ~

I still don't know where THAT is. Help.. please? ;)

Got your message and replied to the email addy you provided.

The Records List Database does not exist. It was created by my organization prior to my arrival. Having had no need to play with the funcationality of QSI, I assumed it was a QSI module. There are, however, several QSI modules that involve the word "Records" in their name...too many for my liking, though, which is probably why the company came up with the Records Lists Database in Lotus Notes to begin with

I feel for you, I also use QSI and have been for about 8 months.
Everyone with a computer here has access and I cant get no one to use it.

I feel its not user friendly, like you would expect. :mad:

I feel for you, I also use QSI and have been for about 8 months.
Everyone with a computer here has access and I cant get no one to use it.

I feel its not user friendly, like you would expect. :mad:

Why is no one using QSI? I admit that it is not the most user friendly of programmes, but if your company's standard is to use QSI then people should use it. I'm sorry, but refusing to use it serves no purpose. There are avenues open to you to help coach people in using it. Start up some user sessions where you teach the basics of finding documents. The 'View Collapse All' button (i.e., multiple negative signs) is a life saver! Learn how to search for a document...just start typing and a search box shows up.

When I started at this organization, I was a microsoft girl in a microsoft world...I've learned to adapt to Lotus Notes and QSI.

Hi, all!

I just noticed this thread. We (I, actually) are working on implementing QSi, along with a Notes/Business in a box rollout. So far, getting used to Notes has been a little trying at times, and QSi can be confusing.

A question: we NEVER have material review meetings - those questions are always handled verbally, and a document is circulated for the relevant people to describe what has been/is being done and sign off on it. QSI, when a MRR is entered, seems to assume that we will drop everything and head to the conference room.

Have any of you had this situation?

I have been using the QSI software for almost 7 years now. The first company used it as intended, no changes whatsoever. My current employer uses this software to the max including customizing databases for specification and drawing controls, simulations, continuous improvement database utilizing the "stop light" approach to action items, an APQP database that has all steps of our process with the associated timelines, etc.. The only drawback to customizing these databases is that QSI will not support the changes we make so when a new version is released, we are on our own. We have extremely good IT personnel that know this system inside and out.

All employees have been trained to use these databases for work instructions, forms, etc. However, there are still those that print forms and squirrel them away for future use. This problem is inherent in any system used - that's why document control is part of every process audit.

There are still those that try to get around any system citing various reasons. Your audits need to include the organizations mandated systems - when a corrective action is issued, the problem usually goes away - and if it doesn't, try escalating the next corrective action to the "offenders" boss - it works for me :D

I have been using the QSI software for almost 7 years now. The first company used it as intended, no changes whatsoever. My current employer uses this software to the max including customizing databases for specification and drawing controls, simulations, continuous improvement database utilizing the "stop light" approach to action items, an APQP database that has all steps of our process with the associated timelines, etc.. The only drawback to customizing these databases is that QSI will not support the changes we make so when a new version is released, we are on our own. We have extremely good IT personnel that know this system inside and out.

We did the same too...once upon a time. After 6 months of debugging upon a revision, we said "No more!" and have gone with no changes to QSI except for the ones we feel are mandatory. Every time someone asks for a change, I ask, "Can you live with it the way it is now?" If yes, nothing is changed. If no, we talk someone to determine the necessity of the modification.

You're right, Valeri, that QSI wll not support the changes so if an organization is having a difficult time with the software, the fewer changes you make the better!

All employees have been trained to use these databases for work instructions, forms, etc. However, there are still those that print forms and squirrel them away for future use. This problem is inherent in any system used - that's why document control is part of every process audit.

:agree1: Here! Here!

There are still those that try to get around any system citing various reasons. Your audits need to include the organizations mandated systems - when a corrective action is issued, the problem usually goes away - and if it doesn't, try escalating the next corrective action to the "offenders" boss - it works for me :D

Wow...you're like my twin sister or something! Can I be the evil one, though? :D

Wow...you're like my twin sister or something! Can I be the evil one, though? :D

I'm not sure - if I let you be the evil one - it will hurt my reputation :lmao:

We (I, actually) are working on implementing QSi, along with a Notes/Business in a box rollout. So far, getting used to Notes has been a little trying at times, and QSi can be confusing.

Don't know if you are one solo facility or one facility of many, but my biggest problem with Lotus Notes and QSI is that when a sister-mill who does not have a Lotus Notes platform requests a document, I have to fax it to them. There is no neat email that I can send to them. Well, it looks nice on my end, but if their end isn't Lotus, well, they get a bunch of symbols and code.

A question: we NEVER have material review meetings - those questions are always handled verbally, and a document is circulated for the relevant people to describe what has been/is being done and sign off on it. QSI, when a MRR is entered, seems to assume that we will drop everything and head to the conference room. Have any of you had this situation?

Wish I could help but we don't use that module from QSI.

I'm not sure - if I let you be the evil one - it will hurt my reputation

Well, I suppose we could take turns being the evil one or just say that we were once triplets...no one speaks of the good one in the bunch... :rolleyes:

Don't know if you are one solo facility or one facility of many, but my biggest problem with Lotus Notes and QSI is that when a sister-mill who does not have a Lotus Notes platform requests a document, I have to fax it to them. There is no neat email that I can send to them. Well, it looks nice on my end, but if their end isn't Lotus, well, they get a bunch of symbols and code.

Try this: click on a document (don't open), on the top toolbar click on Create, Mail, Reply with History. This should put it in an email so you can send it. If you need further "tricks of the trade", email my personal address and I will call you.

P.S. We have 8 facilities - Tennessee, North Carolina, Michigan, Indiana and Wales and am responsible to keep them on the right track, so to speak. :whip:

Try this: click on a document (don't open), on the top toolbar click on Create, Mail, Reply with History. This should put it in an email so you can send it. If you need further "tricks of the trade", email my personal address and I will call you.

P.S. We have 8 facilities - Tennessee, North Carolina, Michigan, Indiana and Wales and am responsible to keep them on the right track, so to speak. :whip:

Are your other facilities using Lotus Notes at all? I think I've tried that method before and the recipient, within the company but not using Lotus Notes, had to scroll through oodles of symbols and stuff before finally finding the body of the Work Instruction.

We also have a company Intranet and many of our facilities are in the process of uploading their documents onto this. The Lotus Notes-based version of QSI does not appear to have an upload feature. I would need to print off all 764 documents, scan all 764 documents, then upload all 764 documents...and repeat for individual documents as they are modified.

I have asked our IT Department to look into the web-based application of QSI. Does anyone here have experience with that option?

PS. We've got facilties all along the eastern part of the US and Canada...two of them are in Tennessee.

LMAO.. evil twins???... :mg: hehe.. prolly so.. I met Valeri once.. She didn't strike me as bieng evil at all.. but hey.. maybe she was taking her medication that day!

You guys need to dress the same.. and get a picture taken together one day. I'll make a screensaver outta it.

;)

I hated it at first, but I'm finding out more and more that most of that was due to the original 'owners' setting up the databases wrong.

(And the training and online is soo good, can't understand that ehHh?)

LMAO.. Seriously.. the more I use it, the more I like it.

(but it DID take some getting used to.)

LMAO.. evil twins???... :mg: hehe.. prolly so.. I met Valeri once.. She didn't strike me as bieng evil at all.. but hey.. maybe she was taking her medication that day!

You guys need to dress the same.. and get a picture taken together one day. I'll make a screensaver outta it.

;)

You're right, TD, I did remember to take the meds that day. HOWEVER, the next time may be a different story ;) Screen saver??? Not in my lifetime.

<img src="http://bestcovers.tgnetwk.com/pc/evil_twin_front.jpg">

grRrrr.. ;)

A word of caution: attaching external links to documents that are controlled (as documents in the QSi System's Document Control and Released Documents are) would undermine the whole point of a controlled document.

Externally linked documents can be altered without control. That is a big no no in these areas of the quality system and are not options that should be used. Only documents that have been attached or embedded can be considered controlled.

A word of caution: attaching external links to documents that are controlled (as documents in the QSi System's Document Control and Released Documents are) would undermine the whole point of a controlled document.

Externally linked documents can be altered without control. That is a big no no in these areas of the quality system and are not options that should be used. Only documents that have been attached or embedded can be considered controlled.

I was about to say Welcome to the Cove, Stephen, but it appears you've been around for a while...so, instead, congrats on what appears to be your first post! :bigwave:

While I - at first glance - agree with what you are saying, I've learned that systems are not always so black-and-white. As long as the documents that are linked serve more of a job aid or reference functions versus actual traing or impact the ability to meet requirements, I do not see a problem with linking.

As part of the document review process, there would be a check to ensure the link was still active and the content valid.

Or have I missed something here?

We used to use this system for document control but continually experienced document change request and email escalation for approval problems. It seems that when a document was updated and begain the approval process it would just crap out and completley stop the approval process. Of course we always got the "Its a Lotus Notes Problem" from IBS or "Its a QSI problem from IBM. We ditched the QSI package for document control. I really liked it but there seemed to always be issues.