Greenlight Guru as a Medical Device software solution

joemar

Involved In Discussions
#61
I have this long-standing thing about people (not referring to anyone in particular, including not to anyone in this discussion) who come to a forum and ask for recommendations for or experiences with a service or product without providing any information regarding their selection criteria. I assume they don't have any. Enough said.

Ultimately, it is all about finding the provider or product that matches your needs, and there is never going to be a one size that fits all, or a "best," only the best for this particular set of needs. On the flip, it is all about defining the market with needs that your product or service is a good fit for.

Having said that, I don't judge a book by its cover, but like any book buyer, I give do consideration to the cover. Old cover, old book. Depending on the type of book, the content is probably is going to be a little or a lot different than a book published in the last couple of years. Do I care? Depends on what I'm looking for.
hopefully i provided more info below.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Jim Ivey

Grand Avenue Software
#62
I have no problem providing more feedback. I figure the next person who reads these forums will have some more info, so it's helpful.

Aside from the UI, when i was researching EQMS systems, I basically came to the conclusion that there are two tracks: (1) systems that are essentially repositories for information, and (2) systems that help guide your regulatory process.

Grand Ave. generally falls in the first category. Like, yes, it's helpful because it takes you away from paper and gives you a platform to share documents, but given that it's pretty basic, it doesnt do any of the lifting for you. Some of the other systems have more integration with your processes, or even if they arent tailored, they still have connective tissue that helps the process. An example is that a lot of systems let you start a CAPA in the system, and then from in the CAPA you can start a Risk Assessment or an Engineering Change, or a deviation form... So when you look back at the CAPA, you realize that the Risk Assessment is directly connected to the CAPA and if flowed to the Engineering CHange... This is a basic example, but it is something you guys are missing. You're mostly a repository for documents, and that feels like paper. It doesnt let the computer system help much.

Obviously, there are more integrated systems and less integrated. and some require you to basically rebuild your procedures to fit the system. others are basically off the shelf or have some basic check boxes and connective systems that flow you into other related processes. I am not aware of Grand Ave having much of that at all. it's basically only a repository for documents. That's not bad if that's what you are going for, but it's not that hard to find systems with a lot more functions and pretty low prices. not everyone has to go full tilt to get a good system now. Correct me if Im wrong.

Joe
Thanks for taking the time for that detailed response, Joe! I feel uncomfortable monopolizing this thread when it was originally a question about another company, but I'm intrigued and want to keep asking questions. :)

I have to admit I'm surprised by the perception of Grand Avenue as the "first category" (repository of documents) rather than the second, especially about the CAPA module. We actually get knocked around sometimes by new customers learning the system for the opposite reason, because it is a very detailed, rigorous process that can feel overwhelming for a small organization: documenting the initial concern/opportunity, fleshing out the root cause analysis, developing an action plan, getting it approved, managing the implementation, tracking the verification of long-term effectiveness, etc. All of those steps in the process are managed as separate tasks by many people collaborating within a workflow, working against a set of structured business objects, and the system partitions out the individual responsibilities to each user, focusing on their particular subset of the information and actions to perform on task-specific pages. A single "CAPA" in our system ends up being represented by dozens of objects (corrections, root causes, corrective/preventive actions, related process impacts, supporting documentation for all of the tasks), and gets intricately tied to related processes (audits, issues, complaints, NCMRs, etc.). I think the fault we usually have struggle with is the other one you mentioned: While we try to make the system as configurable as possible, customers frequently end up needing to evolve some of their procedures to fit our recommended process.

Regardless, I'll take the feedback as a data point, and follow up with our sales team to see if they still have a record of your evaluation and any more notes that came out of it. Ideally the evaluation site you used might still be active, and maybe I can glean a little more insight from the test scenarios you ran through the system, to better understand where we missed your expectations.

Thanks again for the feedback, and take care!
 

joemar

Involved In Discussions
#63
Thanks for taking the time for that detailed response, Joe! I feel uncomfortable monopolizing this thread when it was originally a question about another company, but I'm intrigued and want to keep asking questions. :)

I have to admit I'm surprised by the perception of Grand Avenue as the "first category" (repository of documents) rather than the second, especially about the CAPA module. We actually get knocked around sometimes by new customers learning the system for the opposite reason, because it is a very detailed, rigorous process that can feel overwhelming for a small organization: documenting the initial concern/opportunity, fleshing out the root cause analysis, developing an action plan, getting it approved, managing the implementation, tracking the verification of long-term effectiveness, etc. All of those steps in the process are managed as separate tasks by many people collaborating within a workflow, working against a set of structured business objects, and the system partitions out the individual responsibilities to each user, focusing on their particular subset of the information and actions to perform on task-specific pages. A single "CAPA" in our system ends up being represented by dozens of objects (corrections, root causes, corrective/preventive actions, related process impacts, supporting documentation for all of the tasks), and gets intricately tied to related processes (audits, issues, complaints, NCMRs, etc.). I think the fault we usually have struggle with is the other one you mentioned: While we try to make the system as configurable as possible, customers frequently end up needing to evolve some of their procedures to fit our recommended process.

Regardless, I'll take the feedback as a data point, and follow up with our sales team to see if they still have a record of your evaluation and any more notes that came out of it. Ideally the evaluation site you used might still be active, and maybe I can glean a little more insight from the test scenarios you ran through the system, to better understand where we missed your expectations.

Thanks again for the feedback, and take care!
Just to be clear, one of the distinctions between the first and second category in my opinion is the interconnectedness of the various processes. so, for example, in some systems you can create a CAPA, and within that CAPA, it helps lead you to the right procedures to change, it automatically generates the risk assessment that is embedded into the CAPA and the Design File, and it works you through the flow chart to make sure you hit everything. Grand Avenue (i may be wrong, i have only a little experience with it), might have some of those functions, but it doesnt actually generate them. it still makes you remember to do them. no prompts, no capability for you to do the linking of various processes and such. which is why it's more in the repository category imho.
 
#64
Hi all, I am investigating a number of eQMS options at the moment for a start up. Does anyone have any upto date feedback on GreenLight Guru?

The thread here has been very interesting and adding to my suspicion about GG that it is inflexible.

I have worked in 3 different eQMSs in the past, 2 out of the box and one custom built. Requirements are a system that is intuitive, will not intimidate people who are working in a QMS for the 1st time, can handle design requirements well and won't cost alot (upfront and to maintain).

Thanks in advance for any information people have :)
 
Last edited:
#65
Hi all, I am investigating a number of eQMS options at the moment for a start up. Does anyone have any upto date feedback on GreenLight Guru?

The thread here has been very interesting and adding to my suspicion about GG that it is inflexible.

I have worked in 3 different eQMSs in the past, 2 out of the box and one custom built. Requirements are a system that is intuitive, will not intimidate people who are working in a QMS for the 1st time, can handle design requirements well and won't cost alot (upfront and to maintain).

Thanks in advance for any information people have :)
Alice - happy to help you understand the aspects of Greenlight that are flexible and those that aren't. I work with Greenlight Guru but would be happy to connect you to some current clients as well for you to make the most informed decision!
 
#66
Alice - happy to help you understand the aspects of Greenlight that are flexible and those that aren't. I work with Greenlight Guru but would be happy to connect you to some current clients as well for you to make the most informed decision!
Hi Nathan, thanks for your reply. Thats ok, I am currently working with a contact in Greenlight. I was really posting here to get feedback from other users who would have experience with the GL system and others.
 
#69
Which two? And what was your experience with them?
Hi Watchcat, I worked in Trackwise and MasterControl. Both good systems with their own + and -'s like any system.
I was a user and not system owner so cannot speak to the background maintenance.

I am really keen to hear how others have found Greenlight though :)
 

Watchcat

Trusted Information Resource
#70
I was a user and not system owner so cannot speak to the background maintenance.

I am really keen to hear how others have found Greenlight though :)
I'm sure others here are also keen to hear of your experience as a user. Not sure what might have led you to think otherwise.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S EQMS solution (Greenlight Guru and Q-Pulse currently being explored) Medical Information Technology, Medical Software and Health Informatics 8
S GM/VP softgrading internal audit finding - need feedback from an audit guru! General Auditing Discussions 11
bobdoering ASQ Fun Quiz: Which Quality Guru Are You? Funny Stuff - Jokes and Humour 21
T Looking for Input on our Quality manual from TS 16949 Guru's IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 17
C Capt. Bob - A new Guru for us? Motivation Philosophy, Gurus, Innovation and Evolution 13
H Statistics Guru? What method is appropriate to calculate the answer Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 3
J Medical Device Component Change - Testing, Sampling Criteria ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 0
A Labeling Requirements for Medical Device Travel Case US Medical Device Regulations 3
Judy Abbott Guideline as for devices utilizing plants and their derivatives in medical device US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 6
B Registration of a CE-marked medical device in Japan -Will they accept conformity with GSPRs? Japan Medical Device Regulations 0
B Software as a Medical Device - Language Requirements EU Medical Device Regulations 6
C Medical Device registration CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 3
dgrainger Informational DRAFT - Common specifications for the groups of products without an intended medical purpose listed in Annex XVI. EU Medical Device Regulations 0
Q Finding Independent License Holder (Medical devices) in Philippines Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 1
B Software as a NON-medical device Medical Information Technology, Medical Software and Health Informatics 21
M Can you import medical device not FDA approved into the USA under an IND application? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
M Custom made class 1 Medical devices EU Medical Device Regulations 3
A Algorithm As a Medical Device IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 3
A Medical Device Software POC Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 6
V Can we use hyperlinks in the Medical documentations? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 4
K Brazil (INMETRO) for Medical Electrical and IVD Equipment? Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
T Medical Device Registration in Saudi Arabia Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 1
G Need Help with Run @ Rate for Medical Devices ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 0
Y Brazilian lab requirement for medical device manufacture Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 1
S ISO 14644 Cleanrooms: Industry-Specific Requirements for Medical Devices Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
W Medical Device - fixture qualification and MSA Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 0
H Medical Device Labelling ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 11
D One Software as Medical Device product or two? EU Medical Device Regulations 4
R How to find the proper the fieids of IVD distributers and develop the medical device markets in Thailand? Manufacturing and Related Processes 0
K Regulatory Aspect of Embedding 4G/5G communication technologies into medical device IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
I Post-market surveillance and Post-market performance follow-up for in vitro diagnostic medical devices EU Medical Device Regulations 0
M FDA Medical device reporting (Manufacturer in US; contract manufacturer OuS) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
JoCam Accessories for medical devices EU Medical Device Regulations 5
G Medical Device Auditor (CMDA) certification exam by ASQ - looking for input Career and Occupation Discussions 3
M Prescription Form - Medical Devices US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
XRAY_3121 Drop Shipping Legend Medical Devices Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
B Documenting Medical Device Complaints after End of Life? Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Medical Device License as Distributor Canada Medical Device Regulations 9
M Preparing a document for Raw Material of Medical Device EU Medical Device Regulations 1
R Medical device regulations in African countries Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
Jessesun The application of ozone sterilization in medical treatment US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
A Production line for medical devices Other Medical Device Related Standards 1
S Design & Development records for Medical Devices Packaging and Labelling ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 8
K MHLW MO169 2021 Japan Ministerial Ordinance on Standards for Manufacturing Control and Quality Control for Medical Devices and In-Vitro Diagnostics Japan Medical Device Regulations 2
U Medical Devices Labeling Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
K Guidance on X-Ray Medical Devices for Animal Use - FDA US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
Z Swiss Authorized representative & non-medical device regulations Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
T FDA UDI Question - Class II Medical Device Other US Medical Device Regulations 2
blackholequasar ISO 13485 certification prior to Medical Device Manufacturing... worth it? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
dgrainger Informational Good news: Commission proposes a progressive roll-out of the new In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation EU Medical Device Regulations 3

Similar threads

Top Bottom