Allow me to introduce you to software engineers.
Designers of electronics can at least be asked to watch the smoke/fire/sparks get released from their designs while they are on the bench.
Indentifying human error as a root cause
- Thread starter Lee Taylor
- Start date
Designers of electronics can at least be asked to watch the smoke/fire/sparks get released from their designs while they are on the bench.
Watchcat
Trusted Information Resource
But the world would be an infinitely better place. Plus, if they rejected poor designers, better ones would eventually rush in to fill that void. The credentialing institutions don't aim any higher than the lowest bar that will be accepted by industry.
Why don't the "better ones" rush in now? How can they be identified?
And they call me a cynic. There's simply no credible evidence that I know of to support this idea. I think the correct curricula are probably in place for the most part, but when demonstrably ignorant people are granted degrees (in all disciplines) there's not much that industry can do except hire and hope for the best.
Watchcat
Trusted Information Resource
In defense (sigh) of software engineers, I have worked with some excellent software designers and developers. The problem is that, with the advent of "AI," "mobile," "virtual," etc, its become a very crowded field. The good ones are very hard to find.
PS If it makes you feel any better, I will remind you that this is not a medical devices forum.
Oh, I'm aware that this sub-forum isn't specific to medical devices. There was a LOT of good work in human factors engineering done in other fields long before anyone thought to apply some of the concepts to (regulating) medical devices. Likewise with FMEA. Also Process Validation.
The same quality practices and critical thinking skills are generally applicable across industries. So too are the horror stories.
Watchcat
Trusted Information Resource
When it comes to being a cynic, I have no equal, trust me on that. I can provide references. Mostly because all really good ones (e.g., Neitzsche) are dead, most recently, the sorely missed George Carlin. Given the current cultural climate, I fear I may be the last of my kind.
The proof is in the pudding, as they say.
And how is this not a low bar? They are called "credentialing" institutions because they are the ones responsible for granting credentials.
Everyone is a helpless victim these days.
Last edited:
You wrote, "...The credentialing institutions don't aim any higher than the lowest bar that will be accepted by industry." (My emphasis)
When everyone gets a prize, the value of prizes is diminished significantly. Industry doesn't set the standards of education, and doesn't decide who passes and who fails, until it's too late. If the pool is comprised of 80% ignoramuses, I don't see how industry should take the fall.
Watchcat
Trusted Information Resource
Of course they do. These organizations exist to serve industry.
Randy
Super Moderator
I wouldn't know 100%, but I've personally seen and experienced a "lowering of the bar" when it comes to credentialing some 3rd party auditors and tutors (instructors) for accredited courses, in a way the same way we see the argument going over mathematics (though not for the same reason)
Watchcat
Trusted Information Resource
I don't participate in audits myself, but many of my colleagues do. They report the same.
So what's up with mathematics? Always love a good math controversy!
