Originally Posted by
Tomaski
I think "data driven" is one of those buzz words that sound good but don't really get at the underlying philosophy. For example, one could take the position to assume something is fine until "the data" tells them it is not. On the other hand, one could assume something is suspect until "the data" says that it is okay. Both philosophies are "data driven", but they differ radically in how that data is used.
Case in point - I asked someone in our training department why Runaway Stab Trim (a memory item) wasn't a training spot in the sim for initial/transition courses. I was told that because "the data" indicated that this was a very rare event on the 737 and thus not a good use of sim time. This person was technically correct on the probability, but was this the proper way to use the data? I think not.
There is a parallel problem in medical practice, driven in large part by insurance companies trying to reduce costs for expensive procedures.
The basic mantra is requirement for 'proof of effectiveness' which can cause major issues since many procedures were developed and became widely practiced without formal studies.
There have been a few instances of accepted practice not leading to best outcomes when studied which further muddies the issue.
Point being that "data driven' is a rather blunt instrument that can be (like most statistics) twisted to support predetermined conclusions. Of course the insurance companies are not eager to step up and help pay for studies of existing unstudied procedures.
My take on the medical field is "lack of proof is not proof of lack (of effectiveness)