Why change, point by point

1. Search remains structured, never semantic

SAP QM allows filtering by fields (defect type, reference, supplier), but does not establish any link between two non-conformities described differently for the same underlying problem. You already need to know what to search for, using the right codes. In Yxir, search works in everyday language and finds similar cases without needing to know the exact codes beforehand.

2. Navigating the tool requires training in its own right

Transactions, codes, multiple screens: the ergonomics of SAP QM were not designed for smooth daily use by quality or production teams. Getting to grips with it takes an amount of time that is disproportionate to the actual task. In Yxir, the interface is designed to be used without heavy training, from the very first login.

3. Every development requires an IT ticket

Adding a field, adjusting a validation workflow, updating a quality nomenclature: these changes require technical configuration carried out by IT, with a lead time that runs into weeks. In Yxir, quality teams configure their own workspaces, without depending on a development cycle.

4. Data often ends up... in Excel

In the absence of a satisfactory native analysis tool in SAP QM, many teams extract data to Excel to build their own tracking tables, recreating downstream the same limitations of manual reporting and multiple versions. In Yxir, reporting is native, which removes the need to export to a separate spreadsheet.

5. Real analysis requires a dedicated BI tool

As with Excel, as soon as you need to cross-reference multiple dimensions or track a trend over time, SAP QM alone is not enough: data must be routed to SAP BW or Power BI, with the lead times and technical skills that this implies. In Yxir, these analyses are accessible directly within the tool, without external connectors.

6. Attachments are stored, not leveraged

Photos, reports, and analysis summaries are attached to files but still have to be opened and reread one by one, with no automatic link to similar cases. In Yxir, these documents are read and integrated into the analysis, not just archived.

7. Licence costs limit access to a few trained users

Access to SAP QM is generally restricted to a small number of "power users" due to the cost of licences, which prompts the rest of the teams to bypass the tool using external files. In Yxir, access is designed to be open to all relevant quality and production teams.

8. Field or mobile access remains limited

Viewing or updating an SAP QM file from a production station or a mobile terminal was not designed as a standard use case, which delays the feedback of information from the field. In Yxir, mobile access allows a discrepancy to be documented at the moment it occurs.

9. No automatic detection of similar cases between modules or sites

The data certainly exists in SAP, but nothing automatically links a discrepancy to a comparable case handled elsewhere in the system. In Yxir, this connection is made natively, without any queries or extractions to build.

How the switchover works in practice

1. No mandatory data migration: SAP QM remains the system of record, Yxir acts as an additional reasoning layer.

2. Connection to existing governance: integration with the SSO already in place (Entra ID), role-based permissions, no new identity system to manage.

3. Import of relevant quality history (SAP exports, 8D reports, complaints) so that Atom is useful from the very first cases processed.

4. 3 to 6-week learning phase, with dedicated support.

5. On-premise option available for restricted environments (defence, nuclear), with CISO involvement from the start if necessary.