Skip to main content

Licenses and Certifications: Enemies of Innovation?

One of my peeves has always been government-mandated licenses and certifications. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, and interior designers all require these kinds of certifications. In my opinion, such certification requirements have the following kinds of negative effects:
  1. Stifling innovation. Getting certified typically requires immersing yourself, sometimes for years, in established ways of doing things and thus discourages people who thrive on innovation.
  2. Shortages. Certifications result in exclusive "clubs" that prosper by keeping competition low. The "clubs" typically help define the certification requirements, and the members of the club have a vested interest in making the requirements stringent.
  3. Expense. With shortages come expense. When you restrict the supply of people providing a service, the cost of the service stays artificially high.
A friend of mine who grew up in Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay), India told me that quality medical care is much cheaper, and much more plentiful, there than in the U.S. Apparently, you can walk down a typical block in Mumbai and pass several doctor's offices. If you have strep throat, you can spontaneously pop in for a $5 or $10 visit and come out with antibiotics.

India requires certain training for doctors, but the number of years of training are significantly fewer than in the U.S.

Comments

mark said…
Who wants an innovative doctor? I DO want a doctor who's tied to results.

Don't like certification either, but think the medical affordability issues have other fundamental causes (e.g., weird malpractice payout and clubby patient insurance coverage).

If we have JD certification, why can't we maintain trial lawyer 'quality'? Oh. Right.

Popular posts from this blog

Why Spreadsheets Suck for Prioritizing

The Goal As a company executive, you want confidence that your product team (which includes all the people, from all departments, responsible for product success) has a sound basis for deciding which items are on the product roadmap. You also want confidence the team is prioritizing the items in a smart way. What Should We Prioritize? The items the team prioritizes could be features, user stories, epics, market problems, themes, or experiments. Melissa Perri  makes an excellent case for a " problem roadmap ", and, in general, I recommend focusing on the latter types of items. However, the topic of what types of items you should prioritize - and in what situations - is interesting and important but beyond the scope of this blog entry. A Sad but Familiar Story If there is significant controversy about priorities, then almost inevitably, a product manager or other member of the team decides to put together The Spreadsheet. I've done it. Some of the mos

Use Case as a Black Box

Consider the following use case: Purchase Items Actor: Purchaser Precondition: Purchaser types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40. Postcondition: For the average Purchaser acting at full efficiency, the number of seconds elapsed is no more than 30 + 20 * n, where n is the number of items purchased. The name of the use case represents a functional requirement. What does the product do, or enable the user to do? Purchase items. What are we to make of the preconditions and postconditions? What relationship do they have to the requirements for the product? Answer: the preconditions and postconditions are the nonfunctional requirements attached to the functional requirement . Another way of expressing the nonfunctional requirement would be as an attribute and associated constraint: Usability: For a Purchaser who types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40, it shall take no

Henry Ford's "Faster Horse" Quote

You may have heard the ( apocryphal ) Henry Ford quote: If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse". Over at the On Product Management blog , Saeed gives his take on this infamous quote. He "hates" it, and gives some compelling reasons. Saeed is spot on in his explanations. Personally, I think the quote is great, but it's a matter of interpretation. The valid point of the quote is not that it's a bad idea to facilitate a conversation with your market to better understand it. The valid points are: You must ask the right questions to get valuable answers. You must interpret the answers thoughtfully - often outside their direct meaning - to glean reliable information. Asking questions is not always the best way to "listen" to your market. (E.g., sometimes pure observational studies are more reliable.) Nonetheless, I find the quote is helpful to combat "armchair product management" in the