TrustRadius
Qvidian RFP & Proposal Automation Review 17 of 32
Qvidian RFP & Proposal Automation Review: "Qvidian Works Well for Simple Proposals and RFPs"
https://www.trustradius.com/proposalQvidian RFP & Proposal AutomationUnspecified8.237101
Charlie Sim profile photo
February 26, 2014

Qvidian RFP & Proposal Automation Review: "Qvidian Works Well for Simple Proposals and RFPs"

Score 7 out of 101
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source

Software Version
10.1

Overall Satisfaction

Qvidian is used by the department only to address the following business requirements:
Document Management/Versioning (ie, Conflicts must be resolved when users edit and save content while another using is reading and/or editing content), Searchability (ie, Content must be searchable. Search results must be relevant), Search and Respond to RFPs.
  • Customize the output. Qvidian allows you to place static content into sections that you can define. You can also use customizable content pieces such as client name, etc. through codes.
  • Library and record management. It's not perfect, but you can tag records with metadata, and search using advanced options.
  • Accessible. Online access is a big plus, although, again it's not perfect. But the fact that it's a SaaS cloud-based platform gives you flexibility to use regardless of location and machine.
  • User interface isn't pretty. Nor is it that intuitive. There's a lot of setup to be done, and constant maintenace of the records that is hampered by the user interface. For example, records aren't easily editable from the library. You can have download then edit, and upload back into the library to save changes.
  • Plug-in for Word doesn't function smoothly all the time. There's a lot of deleting existing plug-ins, downloading and reinstalling that goes on when using Qvidian's Word plug-in.
  • Content management philosophy is still Web 1.0. Does not incorporate wiki-based content management philosophy and strategies (Web 2.0), which means that gatekeepers are the bottlenecks for information accuracy and responsiveness. A more modern Content Management philosophy would incorporate specifically defined "Crowd sourcing" to help maintain accuracy of content records. Qvidian is not able to embrace this concept as it is still folder and file based.
  • It's increased employee efficiency. It makes searching for answers easier and quicker. It also adds workflows and time, but in the end, if you are able to maintain your content, it'll be worthwhile.
PMAPS is much more intuitive and search is more configurable, but in the end Qvidian is cheaper, and has an auto-build feature that while it's not useful to me, it can be useful to others creating simple proposals. For more complicated proposals, I would use another software, but for relatively simple proposals, Qvidian does well.
There aren't many other options outside of Qvidian that fit our needs, though many software packages claim to do the same thing. I think the next step after Qvidian would be a Confluence-based knowledge library and management system that could replace Qvidian, but we are several years away from making the mental and operational leap.
For RFPs, it's useful. However, I've found the auto-build feature is not as useful as I thought it was going to be. Content management is extremely laborious thorugh Qvidian - as mentioned, each records needs to be downloaded to be edited. Search functionality is hit or miss; assigning metadata to each recordi is also laborious and requires continual manintenance in itself. Just be sure to have a backup plan when Qvidian goes down or is in maintenance which happens more than you'd like to see from a SaaS, especially if you're on deadline.