It is a common belief across that the softwares developed by known and established software vendors (with a brand value) are more accepted, preferred by the companies. And, also they face less queries and questions; are more accepted from the regulatory agency auditors than the other establishing software vendors. Is this true?
My belief that the software performance and the quality; sanctity of related output is of importance and not the vendor?
Do the auditors have a similar approach in the regulatory audit?
When I raised this query, talking with one of the regulatory consultants of great repute, he said, that people’s belief is misplaced and they incorrectly think that the software from bigger companies is better. It would be much better for companies to go to relatively smaller vendors, and they can provide a similar/better software at much more reasonable price with less expensive support and maintenance.
Softwares need to be validated per vendor development and while installation for regulatory compliance and thus, auditors/inspectors would see the proof of these validation processes and should find that the computer system is thoroughly validated and is regulatory compliant; all independent of the choice of the vendor.