When Regulations Change Mid-Project: Stories from the Trenches

Understanding Regulatory Changes in Product Development

When regulations change mid-project, even well-funded teams can find themselves scrambling to redesign products, rework documentation, and navigate new compliance requirements that didn't exist when development began.

That’s why it’s critical to understand the regulatory landscape upfront and to see potential shifts early, so you can design your product with the highest confidence.

Key Points

• Mid-project regulatory changes can force costly redesigns and compliance rework that can derail even well-funded teams.
• Design modularity is crucial for regulatory resilience—isolate compliance-critical components in separate modules that can be updated without redesigning the entire system when standards change.
• Active standards monitoring and early stakeholder engagement with regulators, testing labs, and compliance consultants help teams anticipate changes and get quick guidance during regulatory transitions.
• When regulations change mid-project, conduct rapid compliance gap analysis, revise timelines realistically (budget ~15-30% additional costs for minor changes), and implement design changes incrementally to reduce risk.
• Treat compliance as a strategic design constraint rather than a burden—proper integration from the start can actually reduce costs and improve time-to-market while ensuring safety.

Overview of Regulatory Landscape Evolution

The energy storage industry provides a perfect case study of how regulatory changes in product development unfold in real-time.

The 2001 California rolling blackouts marked the beginning of serious regulatory scrutiny for California’s electricity market, highlighting vulnerabilities that would later influence regulations affecting distributed energy systems.

This crisis laid the groundwork for UL 1973, first published in 2011, which established safety standards for battery modules. But the regulatory evolution was just beginning. The explosive growth of lithium-ion deployments in the early 2010s brought new challenges—including several high-profile fires that significantly influenced safety standards and regulations.

UL 9540 was introduced in 2016, followed by the introduction of the rigorous UL 9540A fire-testing standard in 2017 to evaluate thermal runaway fire propagation. The 2019 Arizona Public Service McMicken battery energy storage explosion injured four firefighters and underscored the critical importance of prioritizing safety in system design.

That same year, NFPA 855 was introduced, shifting compliance from laboratory testing toward enforcement through the permitting process. This standard dictated siting requirements, spacing rules, and fire code integration, giving local authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs) real power in deciding project viability.

Most recently, 2023 brought fresh National Electrical Code (NEC) revisions and a new edition of UL 9540, raising the bar again for system design and documentation requirements.

Medical Device Regulations and Cross-Industry Lessons

Medical device regulations follow similar patterns of crisis-driven evolution. The FDA's 510(k) process has undergone significant changes, with regulators pushing for objective performance criteria rather than comparisons to outdated predicate devices.

Over 1.7 million injuries and 83,000 deaths have been potentially linked to faulty medical devices over a ten-year period, driving continuous regulatory tightening.

Hardware startups in any regulated industry can learn from these patterns. Medical device companies face the same challenge of adapting to new requirements mid-development. Regulatory compliance frameworks have increasingly evolved to influence innovation in products and development processes, though their impact varies depending on regulatory design and context.

Successful companies treat compliance not as a burden but as a design constraint that can actually reduce costs and improve time-to-market when properly integrated from the start. The challenge comes when regulations change after development has begun, requiring teams to retrofit compliance into existing designs.

Product Liability Developments That Reshape Design Requirements

Product liability cases create new compliance requirements that ripple through entire industries. As products do more things, manufacturers face increasingly complex tasks in identifying risks and determining how to reduce them.

The rise of autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence, and Internet of Things devices has created new liability theories that affect product development requirements. These legal precedents don't just impact the companies directly involved—they create new standards that all manufacturers must consider.

For hardware startups, understanding these developments is crucial because liability concerns often drive new regulatory requirements. When courts establish new precedents about manufacturer responsibility, regulators typically follow with formal standards that codify these expectations.

The challenge for product teams is that these changes can happen suddenly. A high-profile product failure or court decision can trigger new requirements that affect products already in development, forcing teams to reassess their designs and compliance strategies.

Successful teams develop decision frameworks that prioritize safety while maintaining business viability. This often means building flexibility into development processes from the start, rather than treating compliance as a final checkpoint.

‍

Strategic Response Framework for Mid-Project Regulatory Changes

Building resilience against regulatory changes in product development requires proactive strategies that go beyond reactive compliance.

Design modularity is crucial. Teams should architect products with compliance-critical components isolated in separate modules that can be updated without redesigning the entire system. This approach enabled companies like Mesh Global to quickly redesign hardware when supply chain disruptions forced component changes.

Active standards monitoring helps teams anticipate changes before they become mandatory. Product managers must delegate much of this work to qualified specialists who can track regulatory developments across relevant jurisdictions.

Early stakeholder engagement is essential. Teams should establish relationships with AHJs, testing laboratories, and compliance consultants before they need them. This network becomes invaluable when regulations change and teams need quick guidance on implementation requirements.

Finally, building compliance costs into financial planning from the start helps teams weather regulatory changes without compromising product quality or safety. U.S. federal regulations impose costs estimated in the trillions of dollars annually by some analyses, demonstrating that compliance is a significant business reality requiring proper resource allocation.

Next Steps in Product Delivery After Regulatory Disruption

When regulatory changes disrupt product development, immediate action determines whether teams recover quickly or face extended delays.

First, conduct a rapid compliance gap analysis. Compare current product specifications against new requirements to identify specific changes needed. Document these gaps with clear priority levels based on safety impact and implementation complexity.

Next, revise project timelines realistically. Compliance operating costs have increased by over 60% in select industries, so budget additional time and resources for regulatory adaptation.

Communicate transparently with stakeholders about timeline impacts and mitigation strategies. Early notification helps maintain trust and allows for collaborative problem-solving.

Consider engaging independent compliance advisors rather than relying solely on traditional testing laboratories. Independent advisors offer strategic guidance on navigating regulatory changes, while testing labs focus primarily on verification. This distinction becomes crucial when regulations shift mid-project and teams need strategic direction, not just test results.

Finally, implement design changes incrementally where possible. Modular updates reduce risk and allow for faster validation of compliance modifications.

Conclusion

Successfully managing regulatory changes in product development requires treating compliance as a strategic enabler rather than a regulatory burden. Teams that build flexibility into designs, maintain active standards monitoring, and leverage independent compliance expertise can navigate regulatory disruptions while maintaining development momentum and product safety.