- Traceability from requirements to executed tests and fixed defects
- Visibility and reporting on test execution
In the case of the software development company, the use of HPE QC helped us to become compliant with GAMP and ISO requirements. The process of developing the software had to meet the regulatory requirements FDA 21 CFR Part 11.
I used HPQC at a software development company for about six years. We upgraded it once from 9 to 10. As far as I know, they are still using that version, because the modifications they have made over the years would make it too difficult to upgrade.
I don’t remember any deployment issues. The R&D department at the software development company handled all the install and setup.
I don’t remember any stability issues (it was over five years ago that I was at that company).
I did not encounter any scalability issues. We regularly ran test sets with over 60,000 test steps.
The response from HPE is almost non-existent. Most of our issues were fixed by the company's R&D section.
The switch to HPE QC was made because the existing system was not considered GAMP-compliant.
The software development company spent considerable resources in getting the system set up correctly using modifications developed in-house, as well as developing user guides that we could use for training users of the system.
An in-house team implemented it.
It is totally over-priced.
We had to modify the product considerably to get it to do what we wanted, especially reporting. It never did fully meet our needs for traceability back to user-readable requirements documentation.