Innovation is the buzzword de jour for industries undergoing major upheaval. But a study by the annoyingly-named German consulting firm Invensity GMBH, shows that automakers face unique barriers to innovation despite major industry-wide challenges. EE Times Europe details a study of 100 German development team leaders, R&D managers and design engineers from automotive OEMs. The report claims that cost pressure and reliability requirements are the greatest barriers to innovation. Some 46 percent of respondents said automotive industry, innovations are more difficult to implement than in other industries. Only 26 percent believe that the automotive industry is more innovation-friendly than other industries. Yes, well, cost and reliability pressures can actually spur innovation. So, as one of the world's most competitive industries, do automakers really have anything to complain about? Nope. It's the companies who've ignored competition to squeeze short-term profits out of antiquated technology that really need to be worried. And, now, are.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
The first company to develop an engine that sucks in CO2 and exhausts 87 Octane gas will rule the world.
OK, and violate the laws of thermodynamics, but we have to dream, don’t we?
The eternal question with technological innovation in the auto industry is cui bono. There have certainly been worthwhile improvements in recent years — common-rail diesel, direct injection for gasoline engines, dual-clutch sequential gearboxes — but also a proliferation of gimmickry that adds cost, weight, complexity, and future repair issues for at best modest benefits. And, given the automakers’ habit of using first-year customers for beta testing, a lot of potential headaches.
I used to own a first-gen Prelude 4WS, which was a case in point. The four-wheel steering system was pricey, heavy (this was the early mechanical system), and while the steering box itself was reliable enough, replacing it in the event of an accident would have been horrifyingly expensive. It also made the car extremely sensitive to four-wheel alignment, which required a special tool that not every alignment shop had. For all that, the only tangible advantage in real-world driving was a shorter turning radius — which was occasionally useful, but demanded great care in tight spaces, especially before I’d gotten used to it. It might have had some benefit on a race track or autocross, but it was otherwise a parlor trick.
I’m sure you all think I am about to blame the government, but today I have a different take.
I think the real enemy of innovation in the car business is volume. Trial balloons are simply too expensive because only low volume, super high end cars can get away with innovation at a profit. Even then, a maker does something really different at high risk.
Add to that a conservative market place of people spending a lot of money and wanting low risk, government regulation, insurance companies with no vision, etc.
It’s not gonna be easy to get the latest greatest thing out fast. I think we live with it, because it’s just the way it’s gonna be.
Yes, it’s interesting that German firm would say that reliability and cost are pressures against innovation…
…especially when German automakers often forsake cost and reliability for innovation.
The first company to develop an engine that sucks in CO2 and exhausts 87 Octane gas will rule the world.
OK, and violate the laws of thermodynamics, but we have to dream, don’t we?
Actually that might not be as far fetched as you think, but it wouldn’t be a traditional engine. You never know long in the future people might be riding(probably not driving the computer will do that) in biomechanical transports using some sort of geneticly engineered plant or algea that converts CO2 and sunlight into electrical energy to drive the motors and creates a biofuel waste product for use in other industries or when the sun isn’t out. Dreams become reality with enough time and ingenuity.
“The first company to develop an engine that sucks in CO2 and exhausts 87 Octane gas will rule the world.
OK, and violate the laws of thermodynamics, but we have to dream, don’t we?”
Actually, something close to this is already being done in labs, using electricity to create hydrocarbon fuels. There was mention of it in the latest Popular Science.
Let’s see we’ve been driving a combustion engine for a little over 100 years…but we’ve moved from B&W CRT TV’s to Color to Flat Screen HDTVs in less than 60 years…yeah I would say there is a lack of innovation in the car industry.
What causes this lack of innovation is probably a combination of factors, but I do think CEO’s with very limited vision and short term thinking plays a prominent role.
1138 : Not all CEOs can be blamed for that. Among many of the factors for cars staying largely the same are all of the industries surrounding the manufacture and maintenance of cars–design firms, parts suppliers, auto shops, body shops, etc. Nobody wants to be the guy who upsets the status quo–there’s a reason why the Prius is operated exactly like any other car and largely resembles a normal ICE automobile. Not to mention infrastructure like gas stations, etc.
With TV, there’s a lot less major infrastructure involved with television, and electronics tends to be a fast moving field.
Areitu : I never meant to blame all CEO’s but I do believe that they are a limiting factor when it comes to innovation especially of late when many of them don’t seem to be car lovers but more business executive and financial minded. Basing your decisions on the bottom line usually does not advance a company but maintains the typical status quo. And when companies just maintain the status quo they usually become stagnate or extinct.
If you are not one to upset the status quo then you are basically setting yourself for failure. CEO’s are paid to evolve and advance the company. The great ones all go beyond the status quo and take chances. If you are a CEO who does not like to upset the status quo then you should not be a CEO.
Granted the infrastructure involved in making a car is complicated but that is no excuse for at least trying not to make it so. CEO’s are paid major bucks(American ones at least)…maybe it’s about time they earn it.
Areitu : By the way the Prius may use a ICE but combined with a battery creates an advancement on the ICE structure. It’s more complicated than what you give it credit for. It may be small compared to what may come in the future, but it’s way more than what American companies have developed in the near half century. The Japanese believe in evolution not revolution and are willing to take and make long term investments. It’s a cultural thing granted but still a successful way of doing business.
As a buyer I want advancement, not the same old thing over and over again.
There was mention of it in the latest Popular Science.
Popular science told us we’d have flying cars and deep sea habitats too. I’m not holding my breath on their future innovations.
There certainly is very little long term vision – most R&D seems to be spent chasing the latest automotive fad and avoiding risk. Occasionally someone gets it right – like Toyota did with the hybrid system. They made significant losses on the first gen cars during the early years but next year they will launch their third generation synergy drive in the middle of a gas crunch and make most other manufacturers look out of touch (Then again, they also built the Tundra).
Sure any grand vision involves a considerable amounts of risk, but then again no real progress is ever made without taking a little risk.
It sucks to be so capital-intensive.
NeonCat93 :
The first company to develop an engine that sucks in CO2 and exhausts 87 Octane gas will rule the world.
OK, and violate the laws of thermodynamics, but we have to dream, don’t we?
I thought laws were made to be broken. Somebody get busy on this, wouldja?