Hello,

When planning a clinical trial, it is true that there is often a trade-off between the factors of good, cheap, and fast. Clinical trials are complex, costly, and time-consuming endeavors that involve various regulations. Choosing two of these factors depends on the specific goals and needs of the trial. For example, if the priority is to complete the trial quickly and at a low cost, there may be compromises on the quality of the study. Similarly, if the priority is to have a high-quality study, the cost and time may increase. It is essential to note that compromising on quality in a clinical trial can have severe consequences. Not only can it result in the need to redo the study, but it can also impact the safety and efficacy of the product being tested. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that the study is designed and conducted to meet the highest quality standards, regardless of the cost and time constraints. I would choose good quality and quick, as increasing cost can be returned with a functioning and effective product.

I agree with @sah67

Choosing between good, cheap, and fast depends on the specific needs and constraints of the study. If time is critical, then the study needs to be completed quickly, which means a fast and good option may be the best choice. However, this could mean a more expensive study. Alternatively, if the study needs to be cost-effective, then you might want to go with a cheap and good option, which could take more time. Regardless, the quality of the study should not be sacrificed to meet other constraints since it may impact the safety and efficacy of the intervention being tested. Therefore, speed and cost-effectiveness should be balanced with each other.

Furthermore, from personal experience, collecting high quality clinical data also dramatically reduces the time for post-processing and analysis. One example, is that I process CT scans. When the CT scans are of low resolution, it can be difficult to do proper modeling, since a lot of small features that could indicate bone loss could be non existent.

As mentioned by others picking these threes qualities depends heavily on the needs and financial status of the project and study. One trait that I think is the most important and should have the most effort put into is that the clinical study is GOOD. There is always a need for a product to be cost effective and fast, but if the quality is not good then efforts in both is proven useless. With that said when choosing a combination of the three, the trait of it being good should be prioritized. So that leaves with choosing the study to be good and fast or good and cheap. If time is not a constrait, then good and cheap is optimal, while if money is abundant, good and fast is optimal. 

I think the two I would choose are good and fast; though this would be pricey and possibly not cost-effective. Fast so the product can hit the market faster and start to make a difference. Good because I would hate for it to be bad then going back to the drawing board and figuring out what went wrong and fixing it. Ultimately that will take more time to get the product to the market. I also agree that good must be one of the choices because the product is a biomedical device, possibly a life-saving one, and if that was bad, then that is a liability and can reflect badly on the company.

I would pick ‘Good’ and ‘Cheap.’ Of the three options offered, the two that are picked, or are necessary, are dependent on the industry and the type/size of project. Different projects have different needs and different timelines. In the medical device industry, I think good and cheap are important. As others have mentioned in the thread, it’s not safe for a medical device to be completed as fast as possible. This can lead to recalls, patient-problems, and ends up costing the company a lot more than if they were to take the time to make the product safe and efficient. It would also damage their reputation. As far as clinical trials go, it’s definitely important for them to be ‘good.’ A good clinical study is supposed to prove the efficacy and safety of the product. It has to show that the product is safe for people to use and it’s doing its intended job. Depending on the type of product, it also has to prove itself in different types of trials. For example, is it preventing a disease (preventative trials), is it diagnosing something (diagnostic trials), is it treating something (treatment trials) etc. In addition, there are also phases of clinical trials, and the product has to move smoothly from one phase to another. So, when a team decides that they want a “good” clinical trial, they have to ensure that these elements are well planned and executed. Next, it’s ideal for it to be cheap — this would save the company a lot of money and resources. However, clinical trials are usually not cheap. Depending on the product, the money invested into clinical trials can be beneficial if it allows for the product to be in the market long term.

An important factor when dealing with a large project is time and money and as mentioned previously the financial state of a project is very important. But as stated in the question, I do believe that good quality holds an important factor as well. Especially in the medical device field, these products would be going into someone's body and could have a greater risk if they are not tested to a high quality to ensure that they will not cause damage later on.  And in the event that they do, the finances would be worse. So I believe that if I had to choose I would choose to go with good quality while being on budget and sometimes these two could be difficult to be together in a project but if given the option these two have more priority. 

I agree with everything mentioned above that it honestly depends on the nature of the task the project manager is dealing with. Good definitely should always be a number one choice because although time is an important factor the number one goal is to produce quality products for the consumer that are accepted by the FDA. Without this ideology there may be constant drawbacks to fix errors which delays the project in the long run. Choosing between quick and fast is a little difficult for me because what exactly is the difference? Is quick faster than fast? If thats the case Id chose fast because we want the project to be completed in a timely manner without rushing over important factors.

I would pick Good because quality is very important in any project and Cheap because it can help you to stretch our budget and have more for any issues we might encounter in the future. I believe these two options are a great way to start the trials because that is what people look for at all times. If you take into consideration people's needs then, your products would be a success for the public that is intended to. 

In my opinion, I would choose to have a good and fast clinical trial. To buy good quality items could sometimes come at a higher cost, which sometimes makes it hard to find a cheaper item around the same quality. I would also want the trial to be fast because it would be easier to fix any issues that arise if the trial finishes ahead of time and it is noticed that some data is wrong or if there are any biocompatibility issues. Of course you want to make sure that the trial isn't rushed through by allowing sufficient slack time for each of the tests and assembly. Unfortunately, most companies decided to do cheap and fast so that they are able to save on money and get their product out faster, which could lead to issues arising after it being in production and being used by consumers. An example of this is the issue J&J had when it was discovered that some of their products contained materials that could lead to cancer and consumers would apply these products multiple time daily since it was skin products. They were sued and forced to fix these products with less harmful materials, which in turn would drive up the companies costs. 

If I was planning a clinical trial, I would ideally be able to choose good and cheap. I think that in general, good should be always chosen. Any medical device that is manufactures has the potential to impact hundreds if not tens of thousands of patients. Patients and doctors using the products are putting their trust into your company and product that it is safe and everything important was tested for. If you have a cheap and fast study, not caring about the quality of it, there is room for a lot of errors. These errors could just further delay your study costing the company more money, or, could result in findings that are the bare minimum for regulatory approval. When it is the bare minimum, all possible risks could not be tested and could come up later after the product is on the market. It could lead to a mass recall, negatively impacting the trustworthiness of the company and patient health. 

It is evident from reading almost every other post that the one option that is repeatedly in everyone's top two is good, and I would have to agree with everything that has been said. Good is extremely important to clinical trials. Good stands for a high and valuable quality of the work that is done to accomplish data. If good was not chosen, then that would mean the work would be done 'cheap' and 'fast', compromising quality. Compromising quality results in a lack of attention to detail and increases the risk of the project. For example, you may have to recruit fewer participants, use less advanced technology, or have a shorter follow-up period, which could affect the quality and reliability of the data. This approach also carries a higher risk of adverse events, as shortcuts may be taken, and safety procedures may not be as comprehensive as they would be in a more rigorous study. For that reason, I would personally choose 'good' and 'fast'. Good and fast represent quality work that is done in a shortened amount of time. Although there is an argument to made for 'good' and 'cheap', for me cheap holds a negative connotations, and I may steer away from a product that is referenced as cheap. 

Good, cheap, and fast all three of them are necessary for establishing a clinical test. However, the clinical trial takes a lot of effort to accomplish. Making one of them perfect is difficult. Keeping three of them well in a project takes more effort. I will choose good and fast if I don't have budget pressure. On the other hand, if the budget is limited, I would choose good and cheap. Anyway, I believe the property "good" is necessary for every situation, no matter how. Every mistake in the clinical would result in the extension of the marketing timeline and additional costs. Furthermore, presenting the product with good clinical tests can reduce the chance of accidents.

If it were possible, I would create the clinical trial with the intent of being good and cheap. Quality of the study should be held to the highest degree as if the study ends up being performed unprofessionally, the end product could have disastrous effects on the consumers. Being cheap would also be beneficial as it could save the company money overall but there could be the possibility of having low-quality components to incorporate into the project. Ultimately, the clinical trial being fast could have adverse effects due to the less amount of time and attention given to the study.