QSI Quality System Software - Some not-so-good gliches

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.

[Marc]

Thanks for the details, Thoron!

[RCBeyette]

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" 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).

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?

[Sporty]

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!

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.