2013 Trend: Smarter Computer Validation
Having been around when dinosaurs roamed the earth and computer validation was “invented,” I am sorry to say that things haven’t changed that much across the industry. Validation of computer systems was originally expected by regulators and subsequently introduced in the manufacturing (cGMP) and lab systems (GLP) arenas. Clinical departments were loath to adopt validation requirements and, to this day, still seem reluctant to accept these requirements.
Over the years, the “validation community” (QA, IT, business functions, etc.) has been very well intended, with many members attempting to promote the ideas that good software development life cycle (SDLC) practices—including documented testing—made good business sense and we shouldn’t look at computer validation as simply a regulatory requirement. Unfortunately, the validation community as a whole generally failed to get this message across; and to this day, many companies, including many software development organizations within those companies, see validation as a necessary evil to be avoided or minimized at all costs.
Those companies, such as Medidata, who have adopted a more enlightened approach to validation have reaped the benefits of more effective and efficient software development practices and most importantly, higher quality software solutions. In particular, great success has been seen in incorporating validation principles within the SDLC process itself, rather than treating validation as a separate exercise. In addition, more modern development and testing practices, such as those based on the agile methodology, result in higher quality solutions, while still generating the necessary documentation expected by regulators.
In 2013, I see even more companies adopting this smarter approach to computer validation and reaping the benefits of a more effective and efficient validation practice.
More on Fran Nolan
Comments in this post
Leave a reply
- Hearables, Wristables and Eyewearables!
- A Three-foot Long Baby… and Other Scary Data Errors in Clinical Trials
- How Wearables and Mobile Health Tech Are Reshaping Clinical Trials
- Providing Clarity on the Definitions of Source Data Verification (SDV) and Source Data Review (SDR)
- Tech: A Catalyst to Bring Change to Clinical Research
Moore’s Law — the idea that spe ...Nov. 23 Media Roundup
There were several big headlines th ...Hearables, Wristables and Eyewearab ...
In Christian Stammel’s NYAS talk ...Are Wearables the Next Beepers?
If you think wearable devices are j ...Nov. 16 Media Roundup
If you think video games are therap ...
Mining Clinicaltrials.gov for mHealth Data
Hi, guys. Thanks for the great post. I wonder if calling these "Industry Sponsored Mobile Health Trials" is blending a...
A Three-foot Long Baby… and Other Scary Data Errors in Clinical Trials
Brilliant angle on the benefits of RBM!
An Easy Problem to Solve: Speeding Up Payments to Clinical Trial Sites
Speaking for over 2,600 sites SCRS robustly supports this movement! You say sponsors want to keep sites - pay...
Taking ePRO to New Places – Replacing Paper
CDISC and Industry Standards
Clinical Data Analytics
Clinical Study Design
Clinical Trial Budgeting
Clinical Trial Management
Clinical Trial Phases
Cloud Computing, SaaS and PaaS
ePRO and mHealth
FDA and Regulatory Affairs
Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Interoperability and eClinical
Randomization and Clinical Trial Supply
Security and Confidentiality
Site Engagement and Monitoring
Technology and Agile Development