A Cautionary Tale: Configurability and Real Life

IRT Essentials

“Configurable” is a much bandied term these days when folks in the clinical trials industry get together to talk about technological support systems like IRT (IWR/IVR).

A configurable system is taken to mean “a state of being that is the opposite of custom-coded”. In other words, faster, cheaper, easier to adapt; changes that can be made with the click of a button rather than requiring two days of coding. In its most honest form, a system designed with an eye toward configurability is a must-have leap forward from a custom-coded system. It should be the first cut on any procurement checklist for vetting an IRT.

But, realistically, that’s where the wish list stops.

What a ‘configured system’ is not is a one-size-fits-all magic bullet. And yet all too often that’s the expectation… and the cause of inevitable frustration.

At present, the search for…and claims of…a 100% configurable system is purely a hypothetical construct designed to serve a hypothetical project. We can imagine Project A and configure a system to meet all the needs of Project A. Voila!  Beyond that, in the real and messy world of clinical trials, 100% configurability is not only a myth…but perhaps it’s not even desirable.

“The only way to make something 100% configurable is to artificially limit what the system can do,” says Steve Zimmerman, Veracity Logic’s founder and developer. “We’ve come a LONG way when it comes to configurability, and there’s still more we can do. But until we’re willing to turn away clients who have a real need for features not in a system’s current list of configurable outcomes, we’ll always be creating, improving, developing. All of us. And that’s a good thing!”

Zimmerman points out another flaw in the “100% configurable” claim. “Suppose I developed a system that has an extremely powerful configuration capability, to the point that it could be manipulated to do everything you might want, everything a development tool could do. Wouldn’t we still need a developer – oops, I mean a ‘configurator’ – to ensure the new complex configuration is correct? And wouldn’t we still need a validation crew to test and re-confirm all the system configurations met project specifications and performed correctly? Yes is the answer to both those questions.”

Want to continue the discussion?

Contact Us Today to Learn More!

Share this Post