The QA Pharm blog once more features a very interesting article: "Company Culture and cGMP Compliance". The author discusses how following Current Good Manufacturing Practices in pharmaceutical manufacturing can be seen as a administrative burden, or as a valuable business enabler. The latter, positive take on compliance, he argues opens the door to a quality mindset throughout all ranks and facilitates continuous improvement for the benefit of the company and the patient.
What is your take on compliance: Necessary evil or facilitator? Let's discuss.
Best regards,
Jochen
Gopal Chimnani on
Dear Jochen,
Thanks for posting this query, currently I am working in Process Management Governance and Sarbanes Oxley Compliance area. My thoughts on on your views are
1. Compliance : Need for compliance originates from achieving certain business objects e.g. to bring the business harmonisation and uniformity in processes OR to safeguard the business assets including physical and brand OR to comply with local regulatory requirements. Hence compliance does achieves some business objectives. Managers may see compliance as necessary evil as the cost of non-compliance (e.g. Fraud, Regulatory Fines or Brand Image Loss) is not directly predicatable and quantifiable and has certain probability attached to it.
2. Objective of the management should be to convince the rank and file in the company to use the compliance procedures / steps as a set of opportunities to review the status quo and look for improvements.
Coupling these points would defeat the arguement of 'Compliance as necessary evil or facilitator'