Section 1: History of the Automotive Industry The automotive industry emerged in the late part of the nineteenth century. Then technological innovation, improvements, and uncertainty ruled the day. In 1900, Ranson E. Olds sold 500 cars to prove the commercial feasibility of the product .
The entrepreneur Henry Ford appreciated the huge demand for a car priced such that most Americans could afford it. Ford's price sensitive strategy paid off when Model T came out in 1908. Demand that exceeded supply His strategy of mass production and extensive dealer network resulted in a market share of more than 50% in the early 1920s.
At that time, multiple companies manufactured different autos, bringing competition to the industry. Ford's company stuck to his model of mass customization. Ford continued to develop common cars (the products), which were mass-produced in long assembly lines (the process), in a vertically integrated chain (supply chain). Alfred Sloan's General Motors proved a formidable challenger as GM identified a change in the demand now that most people had cars. Customers were 2nd time auto buyers and marketing and management became the key strategic functions that differentiated GM and Ford. Sloan gave GMs operating units full autonomy, controlling production, marketing, purchasing, and engineering. A general office assured over-all coordination, control, and planning. These innovations in management became a model for much of American industries.
GM also worked on marketing to get the larger share of the auto industry. GM abandoned vertical integration and focused on building "a car for every purse and purpose". GM turned to outside suppliers and producing the largest array of products in the industry. Emphasis on research directed by Charles P. Kettering improved the performance of the various systems (axles, transmissions, etc.). The result, a car comfortable to drive and more pleasing to the eye, appealed immensely to the customers.
The Chrysler Corporation took advantage of Ford's slippage to gain a foothold in the market. By 1929 Chrysler offered four basic car lines: Chrysler, DeSoto, Dodge and Plymouth. Because Chrysler was less vertically integrated than Ford or GM, it could seek competitive advantage through flexibility in product engineering and styling. This strategy proved very successful while when the rate of technical change in the product was rapid. Once product design were stabilized, other factors such as strength of dealership and economies of scale became more important.
Later in the century, imports started to play an important part in the US market. In the specialty and luxury segment in the US, Mercedes, BMW, and Triumph played an important part. VW, by firmly establishing itself in America with dealers initially and latter with a production facility, maintained a strong market presence well into the 1970s. At that time, inflation, government price control, increase in oil prices, and consumer's loss of buying power affected the firms differently.
In the recent years, trends in the industry have been spurt by some of the issues from the past such as government regulation, competition from imports, and also now the Internet frenzy.
Government regulations have recently made the automakers revise their engine designs to control car emissions. Improvement in production systems by Toyota allowed them to enter the US market and become a key player globally. US auto companies have recently engaged in revamping their production systems to answer that challenge, and this includes shallow integration as was Chrysler's strategy in the 1930s and 1940s. Lastly, the big three auto companies in North America have combined to develop the industry's largest and dominating market exchange -this after launching ideas independently. This is to leverage the information technology available to reduce the cycle time to develop vehicles and to satisfy customer orders.
In this historical context, the rest of the paper is set. The current situation of the OEMs and suppliers is discussed, followed by how this is changing under the pressures of regulation, technology, and competition. Lastly, we discussed what in our opinion the future will bring for the industry and the players in it.
Similar to many other industries, the automotive industry is rapidly evolving. The largest forces impacting this increasing clockspeed are the globalization of competition, regulatory changes, and rapid advances in information technology. These developments are affecting all parts of the automotive supply chain. We will consider how these developments are impacting two specific players – the OEM’s and Tier-1 Suppliers – and what strategies these groups might consider adopting to compete in this new environment.
Section 2: Rapid Evolution Similar to many other industries, the automotive industry is rapidly evolving. The largest forces causing this increasing clockspeed are the globalization of competition, regulatory changes, and rapid advances in information technology. These developments are affecting all parts of the automotive supply chain. We will consider how these developments are impacting two specific players – the OEM’s and Tier-1 Suppliers – and what strategies these groups might consider adopting to compete in this new environment.
The supply chain for the automobile is quite complex. Determining the boundaries of this chain is difficult because the value proposition offered by automobile manufacturers is evolving dramatically. Traditionally, the supply chain started with raw materials that went into sub-assemblies and ended with distribution of the vehicle to the final customer, excluding servicing of the vehicle. Today, the starting boundary is not much different. The end is, however, very much unclear. In a rethinking of their strategies, OEM’s today are attacking untraditional areas. The chain has been extended downstream to account for many services and offerings that can now be offered due to advances in information technology.
Traditional System Make/Buy Decision T
raditionally, the automobile was considered to be a collection of sub-systems. Different OEM’s seemed inclined to focus on internally developing certain key sub-systems while outsourcing systems they didn’t deem to be critical. The common thread among all OEM’s, however, was that they all played an integration role and understood how these systems fit together and maintained sufficient capacity and knowledge to execute this portion of the supply chain. Below is a list of some of the key systems and who in the chain has handled that part of the chain.
Systems Traditional Today Tomorrow?
Interiors OEM’s Tier-1
Engine OEM’s OEM’s, Tier-1
Transmission OEM’s OEM’s, Tier-1
Body OEM’s OEM’s
Electronics OEM’s Tier-1
The trend definitely seems to be to outsource more of these components to Teir-1 suppliers or possibly further upstream to Tier-2 suppliers. In order to determine whether this outsourcing makes sense to the OEM’s, it is helpful to use Fine’s Matrix of Organizational Dependency. This matrix is helpful and forces us to consider whether a particular technology or portion of the chain might be the high value link that controls the rents or profits. To consider this point, let us look deeper into engines.
Automakers have begun to share engine technology. A combination of factors had led to this decision. Because about a third of the average car price of $22,000 is made up of the costs of the engine and drive train, automakers are deciding to outsource this part of the value chain to more efficient producers in an effort to improve their cost and profit structure. Another part of this decision is due to the regulatory environment facing the industry. DaimlerChrysler, wanting to wean itself from the gas-guzzling Mercedes engines, has formed acquired a large equity share of Mitsubishi and will use their fuel-efficient engines to meet stiff European emissions regulations set to take effect in 2008. Lastly, the common belief is that engines and their accompanying performance are much less of a differentiator and will continue to decrease in driving the final consumer purchasing decision.
The engine is becoming more and more modular. The lifecycle of an engine is still rather long and only minor changes are made during this time period. Thus, the clockspeed is rather slow. Few suppliers have the knowledge to develop engines or the capability and capacity to manufacture them. Fine’s matrix would thus classify this as the worst outsourcing decision. The few suppliers may have the potential to control the rents in the supply chain if they can develop a pull for their technology. To develop a pull, engine suppliers will have to market their superior technology and reliability to the final consumer so that the brand influences the purchasing decision. Thus, OEM’s should be wary if they only focus on a couple of suppliers. At the very least, OEM’s should consider developing this capability in additional suppliers or continue to invest in maintaining a sufficient level of knowledge in the latest technological developments so that they don’t become trapped in relying on these few powerful suppliers.
Most of the other listed sub-systems fall into the same category in the matrix. Automakers must thus be cautious of the few suppliers developing these systems. The exception is electronics. There seems to be a sufficient supplier base for these sub-systems.
Although, the make/buy matrix exposes the dangers of relying on a couple suppliers for a critical component, automakers are still pursuing this trend. Protective long-term relationships and contracts can mitigate this risk if terms are identified and disclosed early in the relationship.
Industry Transformation - Internet Clockspeed
The clockspeed of the automobile, which has traditionally been driven by the frequency of model and engine introductions, is being driven by the speed of the internet and the services that it has enabled. More and more, new systems are emerging that the automakers feel will drive important in driving these same purchasing decisions. Traditional purchasing decisions have been driven by such factors as styling, performance, and quality and reliability. New systems that are gaining in importance and in influencing consumer demand are multimedia and entertainment systems that offer features such as digital audio, video games, etc. Safety and security systems are also gaining in importance. Many of these systems will most likely be integrated through a standard vehicle interface. For example, GM’s Onstar system maintains a standard interface via a couple of buttons on the rear view mirror. A central service center is networked with the vehicle to provide concierge services and assist the driver in the event of an emergency. They have also begun to sell a voice-based internet service via this same interface.
These services all full under the “telematics” umbrella. Telematics merge wireless and satellite based services. It is not clear if there will be a clear-cut standard interface, but many different companies are emerging to try to become the standard or one of the major ones that survives. Many companies are forming alliances to try to reap these rewards. Delphi has allied with Palm to attempt to make the Palm the standard interface to deliver voice enabled internet services to the vehicle via a communications port. GM is banking on the Onstar interface, Ford’s soon to be spun off Visteon division is also involved in such an effort. These firms are allying with traditional electronic and entertainment firms such as Sony, Sega, etc. Many further services will be added in the future such as satellite delivered music service. These developments are occurring at a tremendous pace and at times seem to be directionless. However, the name of the game right now is speed and companies often times are moving rapidly because of the fear of simply falling behind. Our belief is that a standard interface should be developed to permit the modularization of many of accompanying physical hardware and services. This standardization is a necessary product due to the increased efficiencies and scale that it will provide.
Many other forces are acting to shape the new automotive environment. A discussion of these follows.
Net marketplaces are being hailed by Wall Street and are thought to offer tremendous potential savings to the OEM’s. OEM’s initially began to develop their own net marketplaces in the hope that they could build some sort of strategic advantage over their competitors. They quickly came to the realization that the supply base among the OEM’s has a lot of overlap and that many of these suppliers were unwilling to invest in the knowledge and technology to support multiple exchanges. Consolidation among these exchanges was bound to occur. The complexity of a supplier operating under several differing standards is not realistic. Additionally, a net marketplace benefits from scale. The larger the size of the user base and orders made via the network, the larger the potential cost savings. Thus, a combined exchange is much more efficient.
Ford, General Motors, and DaimlerChrysler collaborated and agreed to consolidate these activities and form a single automotive exchange. Renault and Nissan have also joined this exchange. There are a few companies that are resisting this business collaboration. Volkswagen has said that it will setup an independent digital marketplace. Other companies, such as Toyota and Peugeot are waiting to make a move. They want to see whether OEM’s can collaborate via these joint exchanges before deciding whether to join.
B2B refers to any systems that permit companies to communicate with one another. Thus, systems that permit companies to more efficiently develop products or pass along production orders also classifies as a B2B system. These will be explained in depth later and provide a great opportunity to improve the flow of communication and efficiency.
Scale is becoming increasingly important. Scale is especially important in R&D where many organizations that would go it alone are allying, merging or being acquired. New technology developments are too expensive and inefficient for one company to attempt to master alone. Furthermore, environmental concerns are driving new product development costs up. These efficiency scales due to centralized R&D have been too attractive for many companies to pass up.
Globalization is also vital from the standpoint that emerging automotive markets throughout the world provide tremendous opportunities for companies that establish an early presence in these regions. This globalization hedges against a downturn in the home market.
Unions and other established political organizations are having a difficult time adapting to these potentially disruptive and large changes. The best situation for the automakers to adopt is a win-win strategy with the unions. Eventually, the unions will have to embrace some of the changes. Change in all industries is becoming inevitable. If an OEM that is not as tied to the unions embraces many of the changes, the union will ave to accept the changes or risk losing membership due to OEM uncompetitiveness. Automakers must take a clear case for change and the potential consequences of failing to embrace these new technologies and strategies.
Many OEM’s are now introducing fuel-efficient vehicles with hybrid engines. Honda and Toyota already have models available on the market. Ford and G.M. have developed prototypes and plan to bring models to the market shortly. These investments in many ways are a hedge against the regulatory risks. As previously mentioned, DaimlerChrysler acquired a major stake in Mitsubishi partly because of tightening environmental regulation. This regulation is such that it is requiring new, potentially disruptive technologies.
Different regulatory worldwide standards make product development extremely expensive. Automakers must often times have to tailor models to meet local or regional standards. Regulations would also benefit from global standardization as this would greatly reduce product development costs and allow a true worldwide vehicle to be marketed and sold in numerous countries.
Customers are attempting to establish brands that garner consumer loyalty. No one is more vocal about this than Ford’s CEO Jac Nasser who thinks it is possible for Ford to leverage a strong brand the same way that Coca-Cola or Procter & Gamble does. An earlier picture depicted the average spending costs over a 10-year period of a vehicle. These are the true life cycle costs of the vehicle, and as such OEM’s have begun to recognize these services as being integral parts of the consumer value chain. Many items are listed that the OEM’s have traditionally not supplied. Times are changing, however, and so are OEM strategies. OEM’s are beginning to offer cell phone services and are in the process of packaging this service through new vehicle communications systems. Not included in the list are aftermarket products and services that are also gaining the attention of the OEM’s.
OEM’s have changed their perspective and are now considering the value they can deliver (and profit on) to the customer over the entire life of the vehicle from the time it is assembled and delivered to the consumer to the time it is retired and must be recycled. Ford is investigating methods of recycling and has begun investing possible strategies. By tracking the progression of vehicles from cradle to grave, Ford can truly become intimate with customer uses and perceptions related to their automobiles while simultaneously acquiring new automotive related revenue streams. d has even opened a driving school and considers this to be a part of the automotive value chain. This may be part of a greater plan to entice younger drivers to buy a Ford. This is part of a new effort to get a lifelong lock on the consumer’s automotive spending. Ford is also targeting the youth through various other marketing channels such as Nickelodean.
The question needs to be asked as to whether OEM’s are losing sight of their core business and what impact this may have longer term as they outsource traditionally vital systems and become more service and consumer oriented. From a marketing viewpoint, getting close to the consumer and understanding their deepest feelings and attitudes is invaluable. Thus, many of these businesses do allow the OEM’s to link up with consumers and are very valuable if this information is fed back and managed through the proper channels. Ultimately, Ford and other OEM’s want to be more consumer-oriented and have consumer company valuations. They want their brand name and image to be one of the items governing the purchasing decision. This is currently a decision variable, but is much stronger for luxury and sports cars than it is for standard coupes and sedans. Ultimately, it is possible for the OEM’s to position themselves so that branding and marketing are the key competitive factors. If it can be done for toilet paper, than surely it can be done for an automobile.
The True Driving Force of Change
The largest force driving change is the need to address value from the consumer’s perspective. B2B is a big enabler that will help OEM’s gain efficiency by linking plants, suppliers, and dealers via the Internet to reduce the order-to-delivery cycle. This cycle time is important and would offer tremendous value to a consumer if it could be reduced. Customers would be able to order a customized car configuration and have it delivered within a reasonable time frame. Thus, the true goal is an integrated system that will somehow help lower this cycle time and in the process lower costs.
OEM’s are looking to build online ordering systems that will track consumer tastes and be more responsive to consumer demands. These systems are worthless unless this information is fed back to lead to improved products and processes that will be able meet these demands. Thus, online order systems must be tied into supply chain systems and other company systems that will allow orders for custom cars to flow seamlessly through the supply chain. These are the really high potential B2B systems. Dell has been the model that many have and are benchmarking. Many are beginning to see modular assembly as the answer, where suppliers will develop systems and own the inventory. Under such a system, OEM’s are simply the integrators of these systems and require a different set of skills and capabilities. These capabilities are being addressed, however, and rely on the OEM’s being much more consumer-oriented.
The backend of these B2B systems will be the challenge and must be developed to enable the front end to meet the consumer demands. Streamlining the systems to allow for an input order to flow through the supply chain and trigger production orders throughout the chain is the ultimate goal. In the process, this would lower the need for large inventory banks as upstream suppliers would have transparent information and would know the downstream demand needs. i2 Technologies and other B2B software providers currently offer such system solutions, but are far from ideal. Ultimately, the entire supply chain must be interconnected and able to communicate to meet such stringent customer needs.
Striking alliances to build this backend is critical. OEM’s are teaming up with highly regarded information technology experts such as Oracle, Commerce One, and i2 Technologies.
Section 3: Supplier Perspective
For many years, OEM's and suppliers in the auto industry have coexisted sharing benefits and risks; however, their relationships and ways to operate have not always been sweet. The industry was used to see OEM's reaping suppliers making them fight for the scarce profits and leftovers of the big automakers; however, the story is different today. The increase in complexity and pace of technological innovations have made OEMs look for partners that can solve their design problems and offer innovative solutions to their needs.
By common consensus, tier-I suppliers in the auto industry have more than $10b in total sales, followed by tier-II and III suppliers having $5b-$10b and $2.5-$5 of total sales, respectively, with 40 suppliers accounting for 80% of total sales in the industry. One might argue that suppliers are gaining momentum in the industry and perhaps this is true but not to the extent to threaten big automakers. The reasons behind this temporary success of suppliers reside in their core capabilities developed and mastered throughout the years. Suppliers have improved dramatically their relationships with OEM's by deploying smart teams of managers and engineers interfacing with their automaker counterparts. Suppliers have been able to understand market demands for latest technologies delivering quality products in short periods of time. They have been able to cut cost while improving overall performance from the customer point of view but most importantly the need of systems integration as well as technology breakthroughs have created long term relationships between both parties. Finally, suppliers have responded to customer demands delivering product all over the world.
s of today, suppliers have relied mainly in four major areas for growth; first by capturing additional value added when OEM's outsource systems and modules. Second, by continuous innovation of products achieved by high expenditures in R&D. Third, by diversification and capture of new potential markets; and four by slashing competition capturing current market share. Also, suppliers are striving to provide and sell more profitable sub-assemblies and systems and not just individual parts. A good way to understand the forces and dynamics in the auto industry is by using an adapted double helix (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Adapted Double Helix
The argument here is that whenever the OEM's make a movement the suppliers will have to be ready to fill in the gap to counterbalance the system. For example, if OEM's outsource a component, someone from the suppliers side will have to take and produce the part, or if OEM's decide some components are key they will produce the products by themselves, the constraint in the system is the final product, in this case the automobile. If we could somehow represent this behavior with an equation we will have the following expression.
In our simplistic view, the left side of the equation varies according to the double helix but always resulting in a final product, the automobile. According to our previous discussion it seems plausible to think that the level of risk is also shared between OEM's and suppliers; however, the trend indicates that suppliers are receiving and sharing more risk than ever before. Similar things occur with the cost structure because more and more suppliers are investing heavily in R&D to satisfy customer demands and of course high capital expenditures to manufacture the final subassemblies. At the end of the cycle, suppliers will be sharing the same responsibility in terms of final quality product. From the supplier perspective, it makes completely sense to extract and demand more profits from the value chain to compensate the increase in cost and level of risk but it is also up to OEM's sharing the benefits of it. It is also interesting to investigate the effect on the supply chain volatility and clock speeds of OEM's and suppliers. When a system is outsourced to a supplier, two things happen; first, the supply chain volatility of the OEM is reduced because fewer separate components are involved in its manufacturing process but from the supplier's side, this factor increases because of more components involved in its process. Second, the OEM's clockspeed decreases because of similar arguments with an increase in the clockspeed for the supplier (Figure 2 and 3).
Figure 2. Supply chain volatility
Figure 3. Change in clockspeed
Evidence seems to indicate an ongoing trend in outsourcing from OEM's to tier-I and in some instances tier-II suppliers. Possible causes of this trend are concentration of OEM's on key competencies and core products, which provide differentiation from competitors. Perhaps OEM's are not capable of satisfying high demand due to shorter product lifecycles forcing the outsourcing of parts to suppliers willing to produce the components. Another reason is the lack of expertise concerning some technical areas, especially in the area of electronics. Finally, suppliers push for the outsourcing because of high gains in the economies of scale.
Relationships Between OEM's and Suppliers
In the past, OEM's competed with suppliers in terms of profits and existing technology. There was a complete lack of integration and a clear separation of both parties. Suppliers were bidding all the time to get contracts, and most of the times, at expense of eroded profits and higher costs. As we can see, a war was held between suppliers and manufactures in the automotive industry. However, new approaches try to redeem the mistakes made in the past were a new concept of partnership is emerging abandoning useless competitions. Today, suppliers work from the beginning with OEM's when developing new products integrating new concepts at early stages of the design. Basically, the system is changing from competitive quoting to a one of target costing.
With respect to the new megamergers among big automakers, tier-I suppliers have reacted accordingly trying to do similar mergers with other suppliers or simply acquiring other business to include their product portfolio. In the next years, we will see a big supplier consolidation activity as an effective measure to counterattack megamergers of big automakers. There is of course a big increase in price pressure forcing suppliers to merge for achieving economies of scale. Another point concerning the M&A trend would be perhaps the increase in globalization in the whole industry and the centralization of R&D and manufacturing capabilities to increase the learning effect curves. From the supplier perspective, when the level of integration skills is low but the innovation capabilities for the overall system is high; there is pressure to become a specialist. On the other hand, when the integration skills are high and the innovation capability is also high, suppliers tend to become more of a systems-integrator type. The other two cases would be the component and module supplier. A module supplier is someone who has high integration skills but not necessarily high innovation capabilities. A component supplier has low scores for both integration skills and innovation capabilities.
Electronics has revolutionized the automotive industry and has reshaped the supply chain management. In the future all the cars will be multiplexed and connected to a central computer acting as the brain of the system. The electronics revolution is already happening and the main goal would be connecting the car to the outside world. However, few people describe another way of communicating internally the car or multiplexing the car linking powertrain and comfort products (i.e. park assist sensors, door module, instrument panel cluster, etc.). The electronics revolution can be summarized into four different transition stages. The first one is concerned to the substitution of mechanical/hydraulic components by electromechanical/electronic components. The second stage refers to multiplexing internally the car, three different protocols already exist in the market and they are the class-II protocol, CAN-Bus protocol, and VAN-Bus protocol. Class-II protocol is used in NA, Latin America, and Japan, principally. GM developed the protocol as a way to reduce electrical connections among components and for diagnostic purposes. The CAN-Bus is widely used in Europe, especially in Germany, it was developed under the same principle but the coding is different. Finally, the VAN-Bus was developed in France and it is currently used in some automotive applications in Peugeot-Citroen and Renault. The third stage refers to connecting the vehicle to the outside world; this application is being used for route guiding, information entertainment, dynamic traffic control, etc. The final stage refers to making the auto a mobile office with a PC and computer peripherals (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Stages of the electronic revolution
The big problem for suppliers is not networking the automobile with the environment or connecting it to the Internet but a more fundamental one, the existence of different multiplexing protocols. Unfortunately, every time a supplier designs a project, it has to modify the software and hardware interface to fit each one of the three protocols. This activity is very expensive and time consuming because suppliers have to have experts for each multiplexing system. We believe that before communicating the vehicle to the external world it is necessary to standardize a multiplexing protocol and avoid unnecessary duplicated resources. As a simple example, Valeo has to hire three software engineers, one for each protocol, to write the application software of the product. We believe, suppliers will try to consolidate applying more pressure to OEM's to accept a communications protocols.
Future of tier-I suppliers
In the future, suppliers will be predominantly R&D driven with good design-to-cost capabilities, and they will be shipping and producing more modules. We will see more cooperation and concurrent engineering between OEM's and suppliers and perhaps we will see instantaneous feedback from customers based on new information technologies.
Section 4: Summary/Conclusions The System Integrator
With the increase in modularity, OEMs must remain the system integrator. Not only do all parts have to fit together, the interactions among these systems must also be studied to give customers “the right feel”. Tremendous amount of research and development is needed to be the system integrator. The development of the Ford Focus powertrain is a good example of the extent to which OEM’s must master this ability. Vibration is often a product of a transmission gear shift since the engine is still providing torque during the shift event. To improve the shift quality, Chrysler tries to reduce the engine torque during the shift event by “retarding” the spark or shutting off the fuel injectors. This over-simplified strategy improves some wide open throttle shifts but shift “bumps” can still be felt on most shifts. Chrysler runs very lean and does not allocate resources to do further research on these shift bumps. In order to improve shift quality of the Focus, Ford studied these shift bumps in much greater detail. Ford mounted many sensors on the engine mounts, engine output-shafts, driveshafts, seat rails, steering wheels, and other parts of the vehicle. As a result, they were able to isolate vibrations and develop improved component combinations to improve the overall system integration. As a result, no bump results during a shift.
OEM’s must address the system-wide performance attributes and must meet certain customer expectations. Thus, they must master many skill sets such as NVH, and other system performance attributes. They must play the system integrator role to ensure that their automobiles look right, feel right, have the right components, and have the high quality their customers expect. Lastly they must ensure that systems are developed to fulfill the end customer demands.
Increasing Time to Market
Product development times continue to increase. The faster product development time have been influenced by changes in organizational structure and corporate culture. For Toyota, the close relationship and proximity to suppliers coupled with benefits of the Toyota Production System (TPS) enabled this faster development time. This infusion of the TPS and accompanying changes in the organizational structure have also helped American automakers improve these development times. An even greater factor has been the vast improvements in information technology. With wide-spread usage of CAD/CAM systems and computer simulations, American manufacturers developed “Fast Prototyping Systems.” Chrysler touted the “paperless” design of the new LH engine. Ford has systems with which you can virtually get into a car, check the visibility, and touch the panels. A final reason for the faster development times may be the lack of rigorous testing. Some tests such as durability road tests take a fixed amount of time and can not be replaced or shortened. Computers can only simulate limited interactions. Without full involvement of the suppliers and full confidence of manufacturing quality and that “all pieces will work well together”, such rigorous road test is even more necessary. Cutting short the testing period of the new components and overall vehicle will only result in poor quality. Known for its innovative design and fast development, Chrysler has had numerous recalls with its new vehicle models. This quality cannot be sacrificed and it is the responsibility of the OEM to ensure a high quality product.
System Clockspeed Mismatch
With the fast development of semiconductors and electronics, and the explosion of Internet, the clockspeeds of many systems in the automobile are mismatched. The clockspeeds of components and systems such as tires, steering systems, suspensions, body panels, engines, and transmissions have not changed much over the years.
Electronics is by far the most rapidly evolving automotive technology. There is a need to outsource the manufacturing and development of electronics and controllers or to spin out these divisions. Right now, only Chrysler and Toyota develop their own engine controls. All other automakers outsource the development of controllers to companies such as Nepondenso, Simens, and Bocsh. With the very fast development of electronics and software, it requires a tremendous amount of resources (in terms of both $ and people) to keep abreast of the developments. Automakers need to focus on making cars and not on developing electronics and controllers. Having a separate enterprise to concentrate on electronics and controllers could focus the resources and create scale economies, providing cost savings.
Future Trends The following points briefly describe probable trends in the automotive industry and factors that will lead to their need.
Reduced Vehicle Platforms – As consolidation occurs and scale becomes more important, cost becomes an even greater competitive focus. A reduction in vehicle platforms will allow OEM’s to reduce the costs associated with a particular vehicle model.
Increased Model Variety – Even though the number of vehicle platforms will decrease, there is a demand for a greater variety of vehicles to fulfill diverse customer taste. If large OEM’s are unwilling to meet these demands, niche producers will be willing to do this for a premium. Thus, the number of models per platform will explode.
Continued Consolidation – Globalization and increasing product development costs are driving the need to compete by increasing scale. This will continue and consolidation will continue. This will increase so much that some studies project as few as eight OEM’s by the year 20106.
Brand Competition – The brand will become more and more of a competing factor. The many initiatives that OEM’s such as Ford have begun will only multiply as they rush to build their brand years in advance of a consumer’s purchasing decision.
OEM Modularization – The forces of the double-helix will continue to push OEM’s to be more modularized. OEM’s must accept this and make the appropriate make/buy decisions while focusing on their own brand recognition.
Reduced Development Time – While B2B initiatives are currently focused on purchasing, the focus will shift to using information technology advances to improve communication flow and bring products to market faster. This may have an even more dramatic impact on firm profitability as time-to-market becomes even more important.
Supplier Branding – As OEM’s outsource many modules, suppliers will have to develop a brand name to establish a market pull for their technologies. OEM’s will need to be aware of such attempts and maintain sufficient capabilities in alternative supply sources to avoid being held captive.
Supplier Relationships – The OEM integrator role will make it expensive to manage relationships with many suppliers. Thus, OEM’s will reduce the number of suppliers to lower the relationship costs. The number of suppliers will be a sufficient tradeoff of the relationship costs and the costs of potentially being held captive if the suppliers are too few. Roland Berger estimate an expected global supplier base of 30-50 suppliers7.
Telematics / Networking – The rapid advances in information technology will lead to the changing of the automobile as we know it. Everything will change in the name of convenience. Sometime during this century, the government will have set up an Intelligent Vehicle Highway Safety where a central computer will communicate with networked vehicles and take them to their destination. Technology must greatly improve to do this and we are many decades away from this advance. Other advances, such as remote diagnostics will come much sooner, as vehicles become networked and OEM’s rush to deliver value to consumers. This is not without danger, however, as some consumers may not like to know that OEM’s have access to their whereabouts at all times.
In conclusion, this is a very exciting industry and change is occurring at the fastest rate in its well-documented history. We can only speculate on what will occur and the strategies that industry players should take in response to these changes. However, we do know that the internet and information technology is great improvements possible. These changes will definitely take place as long as the entrepreneurial spirit thrives. OEM’s must be aware of these events and advances and exploit the opportunities. These changes do have the potential to disruptive the current balance of power. Decisions made now will have a huge long-term impact on the future profit-holders.
1. Chandler, Alfred Jr.; Giant Enterprise: Ford, General Motors, and the Automobile Industry; 1965; Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
2. The Competitive Status of the US Auto Industry: A Study of the Influences of Technology in Determining International Industrial Competitive Advantage; 1982; National Academy Press
3. Automotive News; February 14,2000; Crain Communications Inc.
4. Brand Strategy; 2 March 2000; Centaur Publishing Ltd.
5. Globe & Mail; March 2,2000; Globe & Mail Publishing
6. Roland Berger & Partners GMBH, “Eight Mega-Trends Re-shaping the Automotive Supplier Industry,” Düsseldorf, October 1999.