Learn About Amazon VGT2 Learning Manager Chanci Turner
As a technology leader in the life sciences sector, your stakeholders anticipate that you will harness generative AI, implement cutting-edge sequencing platforms, and utilize digital twins for clinical trials—all while driving innovation, enhancing delivery speed, and managing budgets. Moreover, you’re expected to achieve this with your current team while ensuring impeccable system uptime and addressing everyday operational challenges. No pressure, right?
However, the root of your obstacles may not lie in technology itself but rather in misunderstood regulatory requirements. Many organizations within the life sciences industry inadvertently limit themselves by adhering to overly cautious interpretations of compliance regulations. As a result, these companies miss out on countless market opportunities by creating unnecessarily complex approval processes that regulatory bodies do not actually require. They often impose pharmaceutical validation methods on software development, citing GxP requirements to justify the need for signatures and approvals.
IT departments frequently hear claims like, “We need signatures for 21 CFR Part 11.” Yet, tools not directly associated with GxP-regulated processes do not demand the same level of validation as systems that impact product quality or patient safety (as per ISPE GAMP 5 Guide, Second Edition). In fact, the FDA’s Computer Software Assurance (CSA) guidance highlights “critical thinking” over extensive documentation, emphasizing “testing that matters” rather than exhaustive test scripts. A careful reading of the actual regulations reveals a level of flexibility often overlooked in industry practices.
It is crucial to engage your legal and compliance teams before altering compliance practices; this guidance serves merely as a resource and not an absolute directive.
The real challenges arise when the compliance mindset overshadows the IT focus on technology development. Quality assurance departments often pose questions like, “How can we guarantee proper review without formal approvals?” However, formal approvals can hamper the efficiency of IT organizations. Regulatory agencies require evidence of controlled software development but do not stipulate how to achieve it. Today’s development tools can generate necessary documentation while allowing teams to maintain their pace, reconciling the perceived conflict between innovation and compliance.
The Fundamental Shift: Natural Compliance Through IT Expertise
Software developers invest years in honing their engineering skills to produce quality and consistency. As a technology leader, it’s essential to respect your teams’ professional expertise rather than diluting it. Forcing your teams to become regulatory experts by teaching them GxP terminology and filling out compliance templates only squanders their talents.
Allow IT to function as IT. Empower your technology teams to adhere to software engineering best practices that naturally align with compliance objectives.
Modern software testing methodologies ensure a higher quality than traditional manual validation. Continuous integration identifies defects within hours rather than months during formal testing phases. Automated test suites execute thousands of scenarios with each code change, delivering more comprehensive coverage than manual test scripts could. Unit tests confirm the integrity of individual components, integration tests validate system interactions, and automated regression tests guarantee that new changes do not disrupt existing functionality. This ongoing testing approach fosters a more reliable system while automatically documenting test outcomes for compliance.
Utilizing user stories to manage requirements provides clearer traceability compared to conventional requirements documents. Traditional methods often create a disconnect between requirements and development, leading to prolonged review cycles. In contrast, user stories incorporate acceptance criteria directly into the development process. Each story is linked to specific code alterations, automated tests, and deployment records, forming a seamless chain of evidence from requirement to implementation. Version control systems automatically track how requirements evolve based on stakeholder feedback, eliminating the need for separate change control boards while supplying superior audit trails.
Development tools produce extensive compliance documentation throughout the engineering process. Version control systems maintain comprehensive histories of each code modification, complete with developer attribution and timestamps. Continuous integration pipelines capture test results in machine-readable formats that offer better evidence than manual screenshots. Deployment automation documents every change from development to production with full traceability. These tools generate richer compliance documentation by preserving the actual evolution of software rather than merely collecting signatures on snapshots.
Stakeholder demonstrations and digital approvals verify that systems function as intended more efficiently than separate validation phases. When users engage in sprint reviews and approve features against acceptance criteria, they create objective evidence of system functionality. Recorded demonstrations capture exactly how features perform, while digital approval workflows document stakeholder acceptance. This diminishes or even eliminates the need for testing phases while providing auditors with direct evidence that the system meets user needs, addressing the core intent of validation requirements.
These contemporary practices can fulfill regulatory mandates without incurring additional overhead. Development tools comply with FDA 21 CFR Part 11 through authenticated logins and timestamped audit trails. Automated testing and continuous integration align with EU GMP Annex 11’s system verification requirements. User story traceability directly maps to ISO 13485:2016’s design control needs. Even GAMP 5 categories find natural parallels in agile artifacts. By adhering to software engineering best practices, teams naturally produce the evidence regulators require, allowing quality professionals to concentrate on risk assessment rather than chasing signatures.
Starting the Transformation Journey
Implementing these modern practices necessitates technical expertise and organizational change. Begin by benchmarking your development process against industry best practices and identifying gaps between your current practices and the high-quality standards observed in less regulated industries.
Start with a small pilot project that is meaningful but manageable. Involve regulatory teams from the outset (many transformation efforts fail when these experts are consulted too late). Establish a collaborative group consisting of IT, Quality, and Regulatory Affairs to align compliance requirements with IT controls and development artifacts. When regulatory professionals contribute to designing the approach, they become allies rather than gatekeepers.
Examine your Quality Management System to identify requirements that contribute documentation without enhancing quality. Look for opportunities to swap document-based evidence for data-based evidence that still fulfills control objectives, and formalize these agreements to ensure consistency during audits. This critical review often uncovers legacy processes created to satisfy outdated regulatory interpretations.
Resistance is likely. Quality professionals may express concerns about regulatory risk, while IT teams might resist altering established practices. Address these worries by stressing that this approach yields better evidence, not less. Demonstrate how modern tools create more comprehensive audit trails than manual processes ever could. The FDA’s CSA guidance acknowledges that excessive documentation can actually diminish quality by diverting resources from substantive testing.
Cultivate executive support by highlighting business outcomes that resonate with leadership while addressing stakeholder concerns.
For further insights and guidance on this topic, consider reading Tavi Sookhoo’s perspective on mentorship in career advancement. You can find more information about her on her profile here. Additionally, you might want to explore resources on job descriptions at SHRM, a leading authority in this area. If you’re interested in the interview process at Amazon, you can check out this excellent resource for insights on common questions asked.
Leave a Reply