The Ethics of Product Development—Houston, Do We Have a Problem?

In August 2023, the Dutch Public Prosecutor Service announced its prosecution of the producer of a novel electric cargo bike called the Stint (Figure 1) [1]. Five years before, on 20 September 2018, at a railroad crossing in Oss, The Netherlands, one of their bikes operated by a daycare was involved in a tragic accident that claimed the lives of four children on board, leaving another passenger and the driver severely injured. The company—along with its leadership, in a significant departure from past norms—is now accused of marketing its vehicle as safe despite allegedly knowing it to be faulty and potentially dangerous.

This demonstrates a growing problem. Examples of noncompliant or unsafe products released to the public abound [2]. In 2021, Philips was forced to recall their respiratory ventilators with degrading foam parts (Figure 2), posing potentially serious health risks to users [3] —an issue that company engineers purportedly were aware of for some time [4]. This situation, alongside unnecessary human suffering, led to numerous claims and financial depreciations exceeding a billion euros. In 2018 and 2019, the fatal crashes of Boeing’s 737 MAX airplanes (Figure 3) made headlines, attributed to a flaw in the aircraft’s automated flight control system that company engineers had been warning about for years before the aircraft’s release [5].

 

Figure 2.(a) CPAP mask and tubing. Credit: iStock/Askolds. (b) Philips CPAP device. Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Infrogmation of New Orleans.

Though it is hard to find accurate figures on how many products introduced every year fail to meet safety and environmental standards—partly because market surveillance proves to be inadequate [6], while the assessment of market readiness is, in many cases, left to producers themselves [7] —the number may be higher than the public expects.

The reasons and mechanisms for companies engaging in such practices may be manifold, but at the root, it all comes down to time pressure [8]. Research and development departments, driven by executive leadership to boost revenues, fend off competition, and satisfy shareholders, face immense strain to develop new products with ever-increasing speed [9]. Back in 2000, when I was active in the research of integrated sensors, we typically anticipated the development of a new device to take about a decade. Keep in mind that these are comparatively simple devices, essentially mechanically modified chips manufactured using established processes. By contrast, the development of a system as novel as an electric cargo bike at the time took a mere five years. Similarly, the development of the 737 MAX, Boeing’s urgently needed answer to Airbus’s A320, set a record-breaking pace at six years—twice as fast as the industry’s norm.

This hypercompetitive marketplac—often likened to a ferocious Darwinian struggle for survival, rewarding not the strongest or biggest, but the fastest to the market, who then takes all—has inspired a ruthless deliver-or-out corporate mentality, nurturing unrealistic expectations of what it takes to develop finished products, both in terms of effort and time, incentivizing unfeasible plans, budgets, and schedules. Those who want to climb the corporate ladder—or be granted a shot at realizing their own dreams and secure funding—had better tell the board or the bankers what they want to hear. This dynamic has led to a race to the bottom at the expense of product quality [10]. With ever-decreasing times to market and limited development budgets restricted by business constraints, something has to give.

In this frenzy to win all, we are essentially increasingly exposing a largely uninformed public to barely tested products and features, mistakenly labeling this rushed approach as agile development [11], [12], [13].

Those who understand this, the science and engineering experts, have grown weary over the years, with their cautionary voices falling on deaf ears. Some have lost their engagement with the product of their labor altogether, while others never had that moral involvement to begin with, mistakenly regarding the final responsibility for the product and its fitness for market release as something belonging to corporate leadership anyway. “It’s their call, not mine. I’ve told them what we think of it” is a frequently heard sentiment.

There is a simple test to check the health of your innovation factories: ask your experts, “Would you be willing to buy the product yourself?” If the answer is no-and you’d be surprised at how often that is the case—you have a serious issue on your hands.

What to do? Obviously, there is some missionary work to be done for engineers and leadership to get out there and stress the importance of quality, putting it front and center again in the entire operations. We must create a culture where quality is appreciated as a business driver rather than as a burdensome costan adage well known but alas not that universally practiced [14]. Consumers and users, after all, are indeed willing to pay a premium for products that are tried and tested and that actually work [15].

It is critical to create a safe working environment that fosters transparency [16]. Corporate and manufacturing leadership must cease imposing new deadlines on research and development teams haphazardly [17], [18]. Sure, planning is a must, but it is called a “plan” for a reason-things never go as planned. Stop firing or sidelining people if things do not go as planned. Resist the temptation to promote those who promise a disruptively game-changing awe-inspiring new product in, say, “two years from now, tops.” If it is truly disruptive, you are in for the long haul, ten years minimum.

However, there is something else we need to talk about. This worrying trend of products falling short cannot be solely attributed to the “tyranny of shareholder value.” It is not merely a matter of shortsighted greed. Rather, it is indicative of a deeper issue concerning our perception of responsibility and how we organize and distribute ownership. In essence, it is, again, a matter of leadership [19].

I am not referring to management skills, communicative adeptness, business acumen, or financial literacy. Rather, I am emphasizing the importance of taking responsibility, recognizing the ethical aspects of product development, and acknowledging the impact of technology on human lives and the environment [20].

Hence, it is imperative that the entire research and development community, from the most junior engineer to the chief technology officer, be trained in leadership and how to develop products responsibly-which, in my view, is synonymous with profitably [21]. Rushing immature technology to the public may offer short-term gains, but I cannot recall any instances where it has proven good for business in the medium to long term [22].

Society today relies heavily on technology, more so than ever before. Even minor disruptions in modern technological infrastructures could result in the rapid collapse of the system. It is, therefore, unfathomable that those responsible for one of the main pillars of society receive little to no training in ethics, the practical application of moral philosophy, maintaining composure, and calmly balancing the foreseeable consequences of their actions on all involved—on customers, as well as on society at large, company employees, investors, senior leadership, and, indeed, their own careers—in that order, I’d suggest.

It could well be that because of this deficiency, many involved in technology development today indeed view leadership and ethics as someone else’s responsibility, regarding themselves merely as the delivery boys and gals for the magic stuff. Engineering colleges and major technology corporations worldwide could do far more to educate their students and employees on innovation ethics [23], [24], [25]. In many parts of the world, we mandate medical practitioners to take the Hippocratic oath, but engineers and research and development managers, who arguably have an even bigger impact on human well-being, are left off the hook [26]. Indeed, while we entrust doctors with a decisive say in our medical treatments, if you look at the way most corporations operate, we let those with little to no relevant expertise make the call on what technology to set loose on society [27] —a bit like having the CFO give the final go for launch in NASA’s Mission Control [28].

The need for responsible leadership becomes even more pressing as we advance to the next level of technology. Over the last two decades, product regulation has become increasingly challenging as products have grown more complex, offering higher functionalities or features often implemented in software and, therefore, upgradeable even years after purchase [29]. The next wave of products is likely to incorporate even smarter functionality, potentially taking over some human thinking and decision-making processes. This will further complicate the qualification process and necessitate additional checks and balances. In many ways, we have already entered this phase with the widespread adoption of internet social media ecosystems. Now, with the advancement of artificial intelligence [30], we are effectively taking the next step without fully understanding its effects on society or individual health and without proper testing.

It all feels like a big experiment, reminding me of the movie Oppenheimer [31], where the scientist himself grapples with doubts about whether his weapon of mass destruction might set off a chain reaction, potentially putting the whole world on fire. When asked about this, moments before the first test, he shakes his head and reassuringly says, “Our calculations show the chances of that happening to be very small.”

Precisely the attitude we need to get rid of when it comes to product development.