汽车产品开发流程

Ulrich Näher, Wolfgang Neubert, Arno AntlitzProduct Development in the Automotive Industry: Strategies to Circumvent the Complexity ChallengeJanuary 31, 20020Number of models is increasing and product life cycles are decreasing1987Models per brand Number12 112000+25 % +25 %10 9 8 7 6 5 4 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5Product life cycle 15.0 Years-30 % -30 %Source: Press clippings1OUTSIDE-IN ANALYSISTime-to-market is reduced dramaticallyMONTH FROM DESIGN FREEZE TO SOP* Golf III / IV 1991/96 C-class 1995/2000 Mondeo 1993/2000Reduction driven by implementation of simulation technologiesReduction driven by implementation of stringent quality gates6038 324016%2928%2460%* Start of production Source: Automobile production, AN, MID2In addition, urgency towards innovation drives vehicle complexityType of innovation in electronics Percent100%Vehicle complexity – example BMW Z22Radical innovationIndividual innovation30 43• BMW Z22 carries 70 major innovations20 27Incremental modification50 30Today2010Source: Automobil Entwicklung, survey results, McKinsey/ikaand 61 patents • Objective is to ensure new technology concepts for 2005 and beyond • Approx. 70 - 80% of innovations are in the field of electronics: – X-by-wire – Integrated starter/ – Car PC alternator – Center monitor – Curvelight – Fingerprint – Speech control recognition – Cameras for rear – Head-up display view – Telematics Integration challenge3Key levers to address complexity challenge1 2 3 4 5 6Source: McKinseyClear and precise customer knowledge and orientation Efficient product architecture – from identity to similarity Value chain adaptation towards competence based structures Improved development processes leveraging IT opportunities Stringent quality processes along entire development process Project organization combining high functional and integration capabilities4Increase in product variety and model change rate is driving passenger car market fragmentationSHARE OF TOP-10 SELLING MODELS WESTERN EUROPE, 1980 - 2000 Percentage of total sales units27.214.6 10.2198019902000Source: Schwacke 1998, Marketing Systems, EIU, Automobil revue, press clippings, McKinsey5CONCEPTUALIn mature and highly fragmented markets two strategies are possible: Targeting average vs. tailored market segmentMarket sizeMarket segments Competing vehicles A, B, C, DA Coverage ofDimension 1 A 2 B OEM's model D C 3 4 1 Dimension 2many prominent market segmentsDimension 1 A B C Dimension 2B Tailoring of models to specific customer segmentsDimension 1 A 2 B D C 3 OEM's model 4 1 Dimension 2Market creationSource: McKinseyMarket maturationTime6To understand what customers really want is keyCustomer want and state it Customer want but don't state it Customer state though really don't want it0.60Derived importance dominated by 0.50 emotional attributes Derived Importance0.40Showroom experience positive Proud to show this offFor people like meSupport is good value Fun to drive0.300.20Attractive Delivers what internally it promises I feel attractive Cost is good value Most highly regarded A leader Won't break down Comfortable Superior Agile Exclusive Safe to drive Stands out I look Won't let you down speeds successful Sufficient space Modern Sporty For people Exciting Value Efficient fuel usage Acceptable in the know Elegant Running costs customerresale Innovative An escape reasonable Around in Information Manly Youthful 20 years easy Environmentally friendly Negotiations straightforward UnderstatedAttractive externally0.100.00 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5Stated importance dominated by rational attributes 8 8.599.510Stated Importance Out of 10Source: Automotive branding survey, May 20017Key levers to address complexity challenge1 2 3 4 5 6Source: McKinseyClear and precise customer knowledge and orientation Efficient product architecture – from identity to similarity Value chain adaptation towards competence based structures Improved development processes leveraging IT opportunities Stringent quality processes along entire development process Project organization combining high functional and integration capabilities8Efficient architectures have to be optimized on vehicle and component levelVehicle design (macroarchitecture) Interior dimensions, interior packaging Organization of engine components Component design (microarchitecture) Foot controls exampleFoot controls for vehicle type A Foot controls for vehicle type BArchitecture redesign Cable harnessJoint component for vehicle family• Define packaging zones • Determine organization of components • Define levels of freedom formicroarchitecture• Design components • Systematically optimize number of variantsFocus of a standardized parts strategySource: McKinseyEnsure compatibility of macroarchitecture in family concepts (e.g., electronics architecture)Increase share of standardized parts in vehicle family9Existing product architectures are redesigned with highest share of identical parts possible while maintaining sufficient differentiationProduct architecture Function separation Function integration Function elimination Foot controls example Variant combination Foot controls for vehicle type A Foot controls for vehicle type B Adapted parts/modules Principle or concept parts/modules Solitary parts/modules Parts/module architecture Identity 100%Identical parts/modules• 100% identicalparts • Same variants across vehicle types • Building block modules• Existing parts/modules with adjustmentsRestructuring• Related functionsor geometries ("pantograph")Combination reductionSource: McKinsey• Parts/modulesspecific to vehicle types 0%10For deriving communality potentials four cost levers have to be understoodPotential Fixed-cost levers dilutionPTechnology leapsPFlexibility reserves Complexity reduction cost reductionUnits BR A & BR B400,000 200,000BR A400,000800,000400,000800,000200520102015Description• Payback oninvestments across large numbers of units• Reduction ofvariable costs by changing production concept• Lower flexibility• Reduction ofrequirements due to variety costs higher share of ongoing core operationsExamples • Much lower development costs for vehicle type B • Higher utilization of machinery• Increase in level of • Increasedautomation • Optimization of production site concept production on highly specialized, constantly running lines (fewer variants on one line)• Reduction ofprocess costs at supplier: Purchasing, sales, production planning, administration, logistics, etc.Increase in potential dependent on • Blocking type • Blocking levelSource: McKinsey11EXAMPLECost types are impacted differently by cost leversHigh impact Partial impact Low impactFixed-cost dilution Cost type Bought-in materials Manufacturing costs Research and development Warranty and goodwill Administration and sales costsTechnology leapsFlexibility reserves reductionComplexity reductionImpact at 100% communality Percent 7-9 9 - 10 10 10 5Impact depends upon level of similarity/identitySource: McKinsey12Key levers to address complexity challenge1 2 3 4 5 6Source: McKinseyClear and precise customer knowledge and orientation Efficient product architecture – from identity to similarity Value chain adaptation towards competence based structures Improved development processes leveraging IT opportunities Stringent quality processes along entire development process Project organization combining high functional and integration capabilities13 Source: McKinseyPrice increases above the inflation rate cannot be enforced despite new technologiesHistorical price developmentList price VW Golf base model* EURNot inflation-adjusted Inflation-adjustedAdditional charge potential for new technologies – example brake-by-wireAverage additional costs for brake-by-wire Luxury car segment Large car segment Additional Medium car charge segment potential 5,000 end customers surveyed~ 1,000**~ 30015,00010,000CAGR 3.2%4003005,000Golf IIIGolf IVCompact car segment Small car segment2500 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001200* Incl. value added tax ** Statistically not significant Source: HAWK project team14Cost due to additional features have to be compensated by optimizing the value chainPRODUCTION COSTS COMPACT CAR, NOT INFLATION-ADJUSTED EUR/unit15.000 4.000 11.000CAGR 2.4% ~ 20% cost effect through best practice value chain architecture and CIP Electronics share 40% Car 2015 Synergy and enhancement (with old processes industry structures) Car 2015 best practice value chain architecture3.00012.000Electronics share 20% Car today Additional costs through new technologiesSource: HAWK project team15EXAMPLE: CHASSISFunctional value chain architecture will give way to one that is knowhow-drivenINDUSTRY STRUCTURE TodayBrake system System development System integration Electronics Mechanical Brake system integrator Steering Suspensystem sion AxlesIn the futureBrake system Brake system integrator Steering Suspensystem sion OEM AxlesLenksystemintegratorOEMMechanical integrator X-by-wire integratorSteering system manufacturerSpring and shock absorber specialistMechatronics specialistMechanical specialist Mechanical specialistMechanical specialistMechanical specialistDivision mainly by function (system) or spatial placement (module)Division mainly by know-how because of • Economies of scale • Development synergies • Complexity Know-how-drivenFunctionality-/position-drivenSource: Expert interviews, HAWK project team16EXAMPLE CHASSISSpecific competencies are required to capture new synergiesNEW SYNERGY POTENTIAL IN CHASSIS SEGMENT USD per vehicle Synergies199X-by-wire-integrator • Centralization of ECUs and basis software • Scale effects and optimization of interfaces between new electronic components • Economics of scope in production of sensors and actuators Mechanical specialists • Economics of specialization for mechanical components OEM • Avoidance of interfaces through centralized chassis control via software Required competencies• System integration (e.g.,ECU centralization) • Innovative creativity (e.g., ECU and Software design) • Development efficiency in electronics (e.g., sensors) • Operational excellence (e.g., actuators, sensors)1303831• Operational excellence • Ability to capture scaleeffects • Factor cost efficiencySynergy potential through value chain optimizationSource: Team HAWKSynergy potential for x-bywire integratorSynergy potential for mechanical specialistsSynergy potential for OEM• Transaction costefficiency • Understanding of customer needs17EXAMPLE: CHASSISDetailed analysis of competency gaps helps to derive specific activitiesCOST REDUCTION POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE STEERING SYSTEM INTEGRATOR Percent Sample company Competencies Mechanical development efficiency Electronics development efficiency Innovative drive Module/system integration Realizing operational excellence/economies of scale Factor cost efficiency Purchasing efficiency Overhead/transaction cost efficiency Understanding of end customerSource: HAWK project team06Best-practice company Competency gap• Competency building isneeded, particularly in the areas of development efficiency for electronics and innovative drive• Competency gap could beclosed by means of cooperating with an innovative electronics specialist18Key levers to address complexity challenge1 2 3 4 5 6Source: McKinseyClear and precise customer knowledge and orientation Efficient product architecture – from identity to similarity Value chain adaptation towards competence based structures Improved development processes leveraging IT opportunities Stringent quality processes along entire development process Project organization combining high functional and integration capabilities19The 2005 target requires a reduction of development times by 50%AVERAGE DEVELOPMENT TIMES, PROJECT DECISION TO SOP Month8060 months (1988)6042 months (1991)4040 months (1994)35 months* (1999)-50%20Target 30 months or less1990 1995 2000 20050 1985* Concept-freeze to SOP Source: Publications on vehicle development times (70 vehicles worldwide) between 1988 and 2000, McKinsey-Research20A near future development process is characterized by virtual techniques and only 1 prototype cycle30 MONTH DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Month -35 -30 Steps Gateways Package Styling-23 -5 0Project Concept planning development Series development/-preparationStart of project Concept decision Package definition (-23) Package freeze (-19)RampupProduction Start of test series productionPackage Exterior/Interior DesignDesign freeze (-23)Engineering/ CAEVirtual steps/process developmentDesign cyclesPrototypes TestingMassive use of virtual simulationOptimized test strategy driving cross functional vehicle perspectiveCAD 100% (-17)Prototype cycleOne prototype cycle for critical validation tests onlyPre-series Industrialitests zationIntegration tests Component testsValidation Endurance testsSource: Harvard Business Review21AUTOMOTIVE EXAMPLEProduct testing must be optimized along different dimensions1 Effective concept Complete product System Component Simulation Impact Laboratory Field test 2 Efficient execution• Test planning– Risk prioritization – Optimization of utilization – Cross-functional use of prototypes • Execution of tests – Automation – Up-Speeding• Specific parameters can be testedvery early • Test of more variants/options due to faster test cycles • Significant reduction of effort• Early test of highly criticalcriteria/properties • Cost reductionSource: McKinsey22Key levers to address complexity challenge1 2 3 4 5 6Source: McKinseyClear and precise customer knowledge and orientation Efficient product architecture – from identity to similarity Value chain adaptation towards competence based structures Improved development processes leveraging IT opportunities Stringent quality processes along entire development process Project organization combining high functional and integration capabilities23Maturity problems at ramp-up/SOP have significant impact on profitability Possible SOP problems(assumptions) Late market launch Forgone sales Market launch 6 months late 15 percent migration of former customers Full production reached 6 months late 10 percent over target production cost 15 percent over target development cost 50 percent over target SOP cost Long-term quality problems Ø USD 400/vehicle Changes to body pressing tools 6 months before SOPOpportunity potential* USD millions** ~750 ~1,250 ~500 ~2,000Customer migration Reduced production capacity Target production cost exceeded Target development cost exceededReduced profitability through potential problems at ramp-up/ SOP~190 ~125 ~1,400 ~250Increased costResources used for ramp-up/SOP Warranty and goodwill cost Cost of changes* Profit contribution from profits or cost differences over life cycle, assuming: 500,000 units p.a., USD 5,000 profit contribution/vehicle, production time 7 years ** Over total production time Source:McKinsey24Software maturity is becoming a critical factor in automotive product Software-related developmentSource of quality problems Share of electronics and software problems Failures per 1000 vehicles thereof caused by electronics and SW 55% Saab 66.4 44% Alfa 52.8 48% Daewoo 42.4 45% Fiat 41.9 BMW Nissan VW Porsche Audi Mazda Subaru Honda ToyotaMalfunction in Percent Infotainment and body electronics Injection/ignition system Engine (w/o injection)32 20 12 8 7 6 6 4 519.9 19.2 18.4 17.7 15.3 13.2 12.7 11.3 10.646% 46% 48% 53% 44% 55% 49% 48% 53%Radiator/cooling Wheels/tires Fuel systems Gears/transmission Chassis OtherSW problems are reasons for recall of more than 700.000 vehicles in 2002Source: McKinsey, Business Week, ADAC-AutoMarxX (3-5 year old car failures 1998-2001), cars in Germany only25Automotive software development adds a new layer of complexity compared to hardware• High number of tacit requirements More complexity • Heavy software and hardware interaction for embedded systems • Project complexity growing steeply with product sizeLess transparency Fundamental Fundamental differences: differences: Find specific Find specific solution solution• Intangible product, hard visualization and performance tracking • General mismatch between scope and available resources projects always seem to be "nearly" completeLess discipline More technological risk More business risk• Inherent tendency to over-engineering • Seemingly low cost of changes • Invariant resource under-estimation • Irrational developer preferences • High degree of change in underlying complex technologies • No widely accepted platform standards • Immature tool landscape • Fast-moving (and in many cases immature) markets • Customer value hard to assess • Lack of experience translating customer requirements intofunctionalityWill disappear Will disappear as industry as industry matures: matures: Learn from Learn from hardware hardwareSource: Brooks: The Mythical Man-Month, McKinsey26Operational improvement can be achieved in a three step approachDevelopment organization• Restructuring of development organization forspecific needs of SW projects is necessary• Building of specific skills in SW development andSW project management is neededProcess efficiency• Complex software projects are only feasible withstandardized, repeatable processes• Development effort depends heavily on processmaturity - efficiency potentials of up to 90% are possibleProduct architecture• Modular, feature specific product design is key toreduce complexity and enable concurrent engineering• Platforming and maximal degree of reuse is necessary to overcome complexity challenge and ensure software qualitySource: McKinsey27Process maturity is key for product qualityStandard consistent process Predictable processContinuously improving process OptimizingDisciplined process CMM levelManaged DefinedRepeatable Initial• Process change • Quantitative • Standard progoals for product and process • Tracking of goals by metrics and statistical analysis management • Defect prevention processes • Technology charge management• Process owned • Undefined proCharacteristicscesses, ad hoc working methods • Success depends on few specialists • Schedule, quality and cost unforeseeable by project manager • Disciplined project management • Process varies from project to projectcess owned by organization • Process-specific tailoring of the standard processAutomotive industrySource: McKinseyAutomotive industry target!Aircraft industry28Key levers to address complexity challenge1 2 3 4 5 6Source: McKinseyClear and precise customer knowledge and orientation Efficient product architecture – from identity to similarity Value chain adaptation towards competence based structures Improved development processes leveraging IT opportunities Stringent quality processes along entire development process Project organization combining high functional and integration capabilities29QUALITATIVELYSignificant issues after reorganizationsCHANGES IN ORGANISATIONAL ORIENTATIONDivisional organizationCritical issues Chrysler (reorg. since 1989)• "Empire strikes back" –change not sustainable – Project management without real power – Support from top management and organization too weakProject organizationToyota (reorg. since 1992) BMW (reorg. since 1995) Mercedes (reorg. since 1997) VW/Audi (reorg. since 1993)Functional organization Time ~1990 ~2000• Organization unable toaccept shared responsibilitiesSource: Interviews, press clippings30CONCEPTUALProject organizations must combine high integration and functional development capabilitiesEVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENT CAPABILITIES High Divisional organization High competenceIntegration capabilities• Development time • Target costs • Known customerrequirements • Platform concepts Limited competence Low"LowProject organizationProject organizationFunctional organization HighFunctional capabilities• Commercialized innovations • Quality of vehicle features • Efficiency of functionSource: McKinsey31Structure and roles within project organization defined to ensure high competencyCEO RolesProgram manager Functional managersDevelopment Sales Procurement ControllingHeavy weightFunctional know-how and integration Single-project orientation Module orientationProductionProject managers Module managersLimousine Coupé ConvertibleBodyElectronicsChassisPowertrainManufacturing/ EngineeringCross-functional teamsSource: McKinsey32Organizational setup of line functions based on individual functionCEO Types of line organizations Line function segmentation Program management A B C R&D departments* Other line functions• Marketing • Vehicleintegration• Controlling • ManufacturingEngineeringBodyElectronicsChassisPowertrainManufacturing/ engineeringPartial segmentation A B C• Body • Chassis • Electronics • Powertrain• QualityassuranceCross-functional teams Functional A B C• Purchasing*• Design • Conceptdevelopment* Best organized along modules Source: McKinseyA, B, C programs33The necessary change process must be driven by top management and requires a long term change in people's mindsets1 2 3 4 5 6Source: McKinseyClear and precise customer knowledge and orientation Efficient product architecture – from identity to similarity Value chain adaptation towards competence based structures Improved development processes leveraging IT opportunities Stringent quality processes along entire development process Project organization combining high functional and integration capabilitiesCharacteristics of change process• Top management topic • Change managementapproach required• Long term processAct now forward instead of reacting afterwards34。