An interesting question Jacob, I believe a degree covers you in a broader sense while a certificate is for those who are looking for a specific craft. A degree can span a wide array of disciplines; for example if you were to graduate with a Bachelors degree in Biomedical Engineering, you could easily transition into various research fields, work on design development or management of medical devices of all forms, or even go into designing less common products such as health prediction programs, or material sciences focused on surgical applications. However, all that broad experience takes a lot of time and a lot of money to complete and does not necessarily show an employer you have the required experience they are looking for. Certificates are a way of proving ones skill in a specific skill and are treated like an industry standard. Many companies that higher for quality assurance engineering require some degree of Six Sigma training like you said. Now, because of that focus, certifications are not often cross disciplinary and it can be difficult to decide which certifications to go for depending on the role you are looking for. As for the PM role specifically, the broad knowledge provided by a degree grants the individual far more leverage in their role when dealing with people of different backgrounds and expertise. A degree can also give someone more connections, providing a PM with a network they can use to solve whatever issues may arise during the development and verification process.  

As you had said, Jacob, I think the longitudinal ROI in Project Management for degrees and certifications serves different, yet complementary functions. I certainly agree that PMP/Six Sigma gives you the immediate credibility and a standardized framework that employers recognize. I have heard this can accelerate promotions, especially in the short term, as they signal competency (e.g., scope, risk & cost management). Also, as you said, I agree that degrees offer broader strategic thinking and systems-level understanding over time that may ultimately make an engineer/manager more adaptable to situations. Attaining a graduate degree in an engineering/technical discipline may certainly bolster decision-making capabilities in both high-risk and simply ambiguous environments. Thus, I would argue that, in the long term, degrees may certainly help provide a more sustained ROI, as they influence how someone thinks more than how effectively they use a certain set of tools. 

Especially in the medical device field, the value seems to shift toward technical degrees. Project managers in this field must thoroughly understand FDA pathways, risk management under ISO 14971, verification/validation processes, and the clinical implications of their projects. Without a concrete knowledge foundation, it can be extremely difficult to successfully lead cross-functional teams and anticipate bottlenecks--particularly regulatory bottlenecks. That said, certifications still definitely form the approach of project execution, particularly from a compliance perspective. Based on this discussion, I would like to inquire whether people think the industry is trending toward expecting both high academic credentials and experience as a baseline, especially in regulatory sectors? 

I think that certifications without the degree to back them up don't really mean anything in an industry setting, whereas someone with a degree (say a Bachelor's in Biomedical Engineering) would likely be encouraged to seek a certification such as SixSigma or SolidWorks prior to or soon after employment. A degree may also afford you similar experience to what a certificate would give you, just without the official exam to be certified (such as using MATLAB or SolidWorks in classes without a certification in either). Especially when considering bachelors' degrees in biomedical engineering, most universities provide different tracks (such as NJIT's biomaterials, biomechanics, and bioinstrumentation) to get a more specialized course list. Those can then be supplemented by a master's degree and/or certifications to help define which niche in the field the engineer would like to/be knowledgeable enough to fill. To fulfill an oversight role such as becoming a PM, certificates would likely be needed, as well as an advanced degree. Ultimately, a degree is what initially opens those doors in industry to a desired position while certificates can be obtained while working to be able to shift to a higher role in the company. The value of each depends on the person and their goals for their career. I think a degree is more broadly useful, at least until substantial prior work experience has been obtained, but if there is a chance to get a certificate, especially if it is sponsored by your institution or company, it can only benefit you in the long run.

I like how everyone framed this as complementary instead of either/or. One thing I’d add is that certifications often signal structured process knowledge (like PMP or Six Sigma), which can reduce hiring risk, while degrees tend to shape how someone thinks especially in complex, regulated fields like medical devices. I also think career stage matters. Early on, a degree may open doors, but certifications can show continued growth and specialization over time. As devices become more interdisciplinary (AI, digital health, cybersecurity), do you think having both will eventually become the baseline rather than a bonus?

I agree, a certification can be complementary to a degree, especially for a PM. However, I would argue that it is also a representation of how much resilience a PM can have through the changes and fast developing technologies that the industry cultivates. Certification can be tied to industry trends and systems of problem solving. At the same time, certifications can lose or evolve to have relevancy over periods of time. However, a degree is the backbone and the fundamentals of a PM's knowledge that is valuable, as there are frequent changes from FDA regulations to technical technologies or problem solving. Degrees offer a strong long term ROI, which allows a PM to take on new roles and positions. At the same time, certification can be complimentary by improving one's credibility, yet the degree withstands the versatility and durability of rapid changes. It is essential to question if long term success as a PM is attributed to the ability to adapt to new technology or the mastery of consistent organizational structures in industry?

Krish and Shreya both bring up good points on something that goes deeper than surface level degree or certification. Krish, you make a good distinction that certifications signal good tool competency while degrees shape how someone thinks. Something like obtaining a PMP can teach you structured scope and risk management in an actual workplace environment, while a bachelors degree in engineering structures how you think and reason through physiology, tradeoffs and ambiguity. Especially when it comes to medical device development, where regulatory bodies such as the FDA oversee development, ambiguity is constant and needs to be well understood by members of the development team. Yet I would still push back on the idea that degrees always win long term. Yes a degree can get you a lot farther industry wise than a regular certification, especially when starting at entry level positions in the market. In actual industry, promotion velocity depends on perceived execution capability and ones ability to exceed performance expectations through their developed knowledge and experience. Certifications like PMP or Six Sigma provide an insight into valuable skills that one has developed. And then Shreya, you make a good point about both becoming baseline. As devices integrate AI, cybersecurity, interoperability, and digital health platforms, the PM role is no longer administrative, but system leadership. All of these aforementioned development means companies increasingly expect both technical fluency and formal project execution training. Not because it looks good on paper but because the risk landscape is expanding. 

 One angle I’d add is that in medical device development, credibility with cross-functional teams can matter just as much as credentials on paper. A technical degree may help you earn trust from R&D and regulatory teams when discussing design controls or FDA strategy, while something like a PMP shows leadership that you can actually drive timelines and manage risk. So in terms of long-term ROI, it might depend on whether you want to move upward into executive strategy (where broad technical grounding helps) or laterally into operational excellence roles (where certifications can accelerate impact). I also think employer perception plays a role- some organizations treat certifications as proof of initiative and continuous improvement, which can influence promotion decisions. Overall, in a regulated field like medical devices, the strongest position might come from using a degree as your foundation and certifications as visible proof that you can execute within that complexity.

I think the answer really depends on the time horizon and the industry context.

In general, certifications like PMP, Six Sigma, or PRINCE2 provide strong short-term ROI because they signal structured project management capability and immediate technical proficiency. They’re especially useful for demonstrating standardized knowledge of risk management, scheduling, stakeholder engagement, and process improvement. In many organizations, they also help clear HR screening filters.

However, degrees tend to offer stronger long-term ROI, particularly for upward mobility. A formal degree builds systems thinking, strategic judgment, and cross-functional understanding. Those capabilities become increasingly important at the senior manager, director, and executive levels, where decisions extend beyond timelines and budgets into regulatory risk, financial tradeoffs, and organizational strategy.

In the context of medical device development, I believe the value does shift more toward technical degrees. Project managers in this space must navigate FDA regulatory pathways, clinical validation, risk management standards (like ISO 14971), and design controls. A degree in biomedical engineering or a related field provides foundational knowledge that allows PMs to communicate effectively with R&D, quality, regulatory, and clinical teams. That technical credibility can be a significant differentiator in regulated industries.

That said, I don’t see it as an either/or decision. In medical devices, the strongest long-term ROI likely comes from combining a relevant technical degree with one well-recognized certification. The degree provides depth and strategic perspective, while the certification reinforces structured execution capability. Together, they create both technical authority and process discipline — which is especially valuable when moving upward in industry.

I think my personal experience adds some real insight here. I’ve met a lot of PMs in the medical device field, and most of them started with degrees in mechanical or biomedical engineering. They usually worked in product development or manufacturing first, then later transitioned into project management. Instead of going back to school for a management degree, they earned certifications like PMP or Six Sigma. From what I’ve seen, that path seems to work really well.

In medical device development especially, I think having that technical background matters a lot. The FDA requirements, testing, and documentation are complex. A PM who has actually worked in engineering understands what goes into the data and deliverables. They know what is realistic and what is not. That makes it easier to lead a team because they understand the work at a deeper level.

Certifications still play a big role though. They help with structure, communication, and keeping projects on track. So in terms of long-term ROI, I think the engineering degree builds the foundation, and the certifications sharpen the leadership side. The combination of both is what makes someone strong in this industry.

Do you think someone without a technical background could realistically manage complex medical device projects long term, or does that engineering foundation make a big difference?

Someone with a science degree can also become a project manager. If they have additional work experience, they can be attractive to a medical device organization, especially if they have product lines focused on biologics or combination products. I agree with previous posts that a technical background is a great foundation, and engineering is the most common. This is particularly true for those trying to enter the industry, who have to work their way up to a managerial position. Overall, it depends on what the organization wants in a project manager. Certain organizations are open to hiring someone with less experience but who has the necessary background and potential. Companies are likely to provide the extra training and support for their certification. Having multiple certifications and degrees is an indicator of longer industry experience. However, obtaining certifications will become more common for people, regardless of experience level.