Minitab and SPC File-Share Private AI Layer Blueprint Generator
This generator produces a structured architecture plan for adding a private AI assistant to Minitab and SPC File-Share without moving data off your site. Fill in your version, database, hosting and use cases, and export a document you can circulate to IT and security.
Fill in
Minitab and SPC File-Share Private AI Layer Blueprint Generator
Private AI Layer Architecture Plan: Minitab and SPC File-Share
Company: Acme Precision Ltd System: Minitab and SPC File-Share (Minitab 21 or later) Data store: No database (file shares only) Hosting: On-prem server Named users: 80 across 2 site(s) Target go-live: 2027-03-31
1. Context and goals
Acme Precision Ltd runs Minitab and SPC File-Share (Minitab 21 or later) on No database (file shares only) and wants an AI assistant that works on the existing system without moving data to a third-party cloud. Hosting model: On-prem server.
Main use cases: Cpk and Ppk by characteristic; out-of-control points this week; find the dataset for a part; summarize a capability study; trend questions.
2. Components
| Component | Design | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Data access path | Scheduled export of raw data to CSV or Excel into a normalized table; capability and control limits computed in code; NTFS ACLs recorded by the crawler | Database: No database (file shares only). Read-only credentials; named views or parameterized queries only. |
| Retrieval index | Local hybrid keyword and vector index over: Control chart reports, PDFs, capability studies, gage R and R reports and engineering notes | Each chunk carries source, version and access tags. Refreshed by scheduled sync or change data capture. |
| Model serving | Open-weight model served with vLLM or Ollama on local GPUs | GPU available today: None yet. Size with the sizing calculator for 80 named users. |
| Tool server | MCP or function-calling server exposing approved read actions | No free SQL in phase 1. Every call is parameterized, timed and logged. |
| Identity and permissions | NTFS or NAS ACLs and group membership resolved at query time and applied to files, tools and retrieval | End-user identity propagated on every call; restricted-user tests run nightly. |
| Audit | Append-only log of question, tools called, query text, data sources and answer | Retention set by your records policy. Stored inside the same enclave. |
3. Security controls mapped to your inputs
| Control | Implementation | Driven by |
|---|---|---|
| Data residency | All components inside On-prem server environment; no outbound calls at query time | Hosting |
| Data that must not leave | Excluded from index and tools unless explicitly approved: Export-controlled program data, customer-confidential measurement data, supplier-proprietary process data. | Data restrictions |
| Least privilege | Read-only service accounts; no edit, sign or approve rights | System roles |
| Network | AI hosts in a separate segment; firewall allows only replica or API, file share reads and audit store | 2 site(s) |
| Regulatory posture | Raw measurement data is evidence: assistant never edits files or limits; statistics come from tested code. | Industry obligations |
| Supply chain | Model weights and containers moved in by controlled transfer; internal package mirror; telemetry off | Air-gap option |
4. Three-phase rollout
| Phase | Scope | Exit criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1: read-only | Questions on curated views and document search for a pilot group; evaluation set of 30 to 50 real questions | Accuracy target agreed and met; permission tests pass; audit log reviewed |
| Phase 2: drafts | Summaries and draft text for human review; no writes to the system | Users accept drafts at an agreed rate; no data leakage findings |
| Phase 3: approved actions | A few narrow actions through supported APIs, each with a named human approver | Approver sign-off recorded; rollback tested; go-live by 2027-03-31 |
5. Open questions for IT
1. Which interface does our license include for read and, later, write (API, web service, export)? 2. Can we get a read-only replica or reporting copy, and who owns it? 3. Where do documents and attachments live, and what are their access rules? 4. How are users authenticated (AD, SSO) and how do we map groups to filters? 5. Where will the GPU hosts sit, and what is the patch and model-update process? 6. Which records policy and validation requirements apply to the assistant's logs and outputs?
Approvals
This plan is a starting point for discussion with your IT and security teams. Interface availability, table names and licensing vary by version and edition, so confirm each with your vendor before committing.
Architecture review for Minitab and SPC File-Share
Optional: have a Netray engineer review your generated plan against your version, interfaces and security rules. The tool works without it.
Optional. The tool and every export work without this. No spam.
How to use the generator
Enter your company, system version, database and hosting model, then describe the main use cases and the data that must never leave the site. Choose the GPU you have today, or None yet. The document updates as you type: components table, security controls, rollout phases and open questions. Export to PDF or Word and use it as the pre-read for an architecture review. Edit the use case and restricted-data fields carefully, because they drive the scope of the first phase and the exclusion list for the index.
- Be specific in the use cases: questions people actually ask
- List restricted data classes, not only systems
- Send the open questions to IT before the meeting
- Re-generate after each decision
The design logic behind the plan
The plan follows a conservative pattern for on-prem systems: a read-only data path (Scheduled export of raw data to CSV or Excel into a normalized table), a separate retrieval index for documents, an open-weight model served locally, a tool server that exposes a short menu of approved actions, identity propagation, and an audit log. Write-back is deferred and always goes through supported interfaces with a named human approver. This keeps the vendor's own rules, signatures and audit trail intact.
Reading the output
The components table tells IT what to build and what access to request. The security controls table maps your restricted data and hosting choice to concrete controls. The rollout table sets exit criteria for each phase so that go-live is a decision, not a drift. The open questions list is the real value: most delays on projects like this come from unanswered questions about interfaces, replicas and identity, not from the model.
Common mistakes
Teams often start with the model choice and leave data access and permissions to the end. Others give the assistant a broad service account for the pilot and forget to narrow it. Another frequent mistake is treating the assistant as a decision-maker in regulated processes. Keep it advisory, keep it read-only first, and measure it against real questions.
- Skipping the evaluation set
- One shared admin account
- No restricted-user tests
- Indexing documents without versions
Frequently Asked Questions
Is this plan specific to my exact version?
It is specific to the system and the choices you enter, but interface availability, table names and licensing vary by version and edition. Treat the data access row as a hypothesis to confirm with your vendor and DBA.
Does the plan assume cloud AI?
No. It assumes open-weight models served on your own GPUs, in an on-prem, private cloud or air-gapped environment. Cloud models could be added later for non-sensitive content, but the plan keeps sensitive data local.
Who should sign the plan?
At least the IT architect, information security, the business owner and quality or compliance. The signature block is included for that reason, and you can edit the roles after export.
What if I have no GPU yet?
Choose None yet and use the sizing calculator to estimate how many you need. Small pilots can start on one data-center GPU or even CPU for a small model, with slower responses.
If you want a second pair of eyes on this plan, Netray can review it with your IT team and show how the private AI layer would work on your version of Minitab and SPC File-Share.
Related Tools
Minitab and SPC File-Share AI Assistant Sizing and Value Calculator
Estimate GPUs, tokens per day, index size, hours saved and payback for a private AI assistant on Minitab and SPC File-Share.
On-Prem AIOn-Prem GPU Sizing Calculator for ERP AI
Work out how much GPU memory and how many cards you need to serve an open-weight model to your ERP users on-prem.
On-Prem AIAir-Gapped LLM Deployment Checklist
A practical control checklist for deploying and maintaining large language models in a fully air-gapped environment, from initial staging through ongoing patching and drift detection.
On-Prem AIOn-Prem AI Security Hardening Checklist
A practical control checklist for securing self-hosted language models, covering model provenance, network isolation, data governance, host hardening, and audit readiness.
More On-Prem AI tools
See all- On-Prem LLM Total Cost of Ownership Calculator
- GPU Sizing Calculator for LLM Inference
- On-Prem vs Cloud AI Cost Comparison Calculator
- Self-Hosted LLM Hardware Estimator
- Air-Gapped AI Readiness Assessment
- LLM API vs Self-Hosted Cost Calculator
- RAG Infrastructure Sizing Calculator
- Open-Weight Model Selector
- On-Prem AI ROI Calculator
Keep exploring
Free tools
- Minitab and SPC File-Share AI Assistant Sizing and Value CalculatorEstimate GPUs, tokens per day, index size, hours saved and payback for a private AI assistant on Minitab and SPC File-Share.
- Dynamics NAV Private AI Layer Blueprint GeneratorDescribe your NAV environment and get a shareable plan for a private AI assistant: components, security controls, 3-phase rollout and open questions.
- Epicor Kinetic Private AI Layer Blueprint GeneratorGenerate a shareable private AI architecture plan for Epicor Kinetic on-premises, with components, security controls, rollout phases and open questions for IT.