I was thinking about the mock simulation that was done in the in person class on Friday and wanted to hear the thoughts of others on the decision making mechanism those of you with years of industry experience have with regards to the scenario presented where two antibacterial coatings of similar cost and availability were tested in an animal model. Four of the rats died for coating A but the autopsy indicated that it was due to stress. Coating A, however, showed higher results sooner than coating B although the final results were not statistically significantly different. The decision as to which coating to use was to be made.

Some methods say that we should plan for failure and always have a plan B whereas others say that spend the time you would on making plan B on perfecting plan A.
Research shows that project failure can be due to the lack of understanding of the scope of the project or an over optimistic estimate of resources required (time and money).

In class a decision had to be made with a justification for the choice.

Because there can be complications with Coating B later on resulting in failing in later tests, I thought the coatings should undergo the other system tests before coming to the conclusion since there is no evidence indicating the deaths of the rats was related to the coating. Since if we choose a coating now and that coating fails a test later on, we will have to go back to square one.
The caveat is that if it passes all the tests we save resources, time included.

I tend to lean towards the always having a Plan B, planning for failure, where we continue through with all the other planned tests like coating adhesion to the device before making the decision since it has been narrowed down to coating A and B. What do you think? What if there were more coatings?