Jan 09

Kalypso Acquires GoEngineer

By Mergers & Acquisitions, PLM No Comments

PLM consulting firm Kalypso announced a strategic partnership with GoEngineer, a reseller of Oracle Agile PLM and Dassault Systèmes SOLIDWORKS 3D CAD software, and provider of PLM hosting, integration, implementation and training services. Although according to the press release “Kalypso has acquired GoEngineer’s implementation services business” no financial information was disclosed.

Under the new structure, Kalypso gets GoEngineer’s implementation services business and GoEngineer will continue to focus on providing PLM cloud services.

Implications

GoEngineer’s implementation services strengthen Kalypso’s portfolio and delivery capabilities in a number of ways, allowing it to broaden its reach into industries and product lifecycle activities in which Kalypso wasn’t as strong:

  • eCAD customers. GoEngineer has a Zuken practice.
  • 3D Printing: GoEngineer has capabilities in 3D printers from Stratasys and Objet (merged with Stratasys in 2012)
  • Industries: GoEngineer has strong presence in manufacturing, high-tech, medical equipment and energy

And, of course, Kalypso will benefit from additional PLM implementation resources as well as experience and facilities for hosted PLM software. The latter supports Kalypso’s previous announcement of the launch of managed services for PLM applications.

Kalypso customers will certainly benefit from a broader ser of expertise and capabilities.

Overall, this deal is yet another step in a number of acquisitions and relationships Kalypso is pursuing to enhance their position in PLM implementation services (most notably, the merger with Integware in May, 2014) and ability to serve both large enterprises and small and medium-sized business (SMB). Read More

Jan 04
Last Judgment (Hieronymus Bosch C. 1482)

The Electric Car Isn’t Disruptive Innovation

By Automotive, Autonomous, Connected, Electric, Shared Vehicles, Innovation One Comment

Disruptive Innovation

In his 1997 book The Innovator’s Dilemma about how new technologies cause seemingly well-managed companies to fail, author Clayton Christiansen coined a soon-to-become a ubiquitous term: “disruptive innovation.” This catchphrase seems to have gotten a new life over recent years. I frequently participate in client strategy sessions and attend conference presentations where the speaker does not miss an opportunity to frame a new product or service idea as “disruptive.”

Now, disruptive innovation does not mean “cool” or “better than the competition”; it does not even necessity mean “new.” The term, as Christiansen uses it, means a technology that challenges the business status quo by enabling a new and different product or business model that disrupts and shatters the hegemony of market leaders. Read More

Jan 02

Ford Drops Microsoft, Selects Blackberry

By Automotive, Telematics One Comment

As reported recently by Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal, Ford is planning to end the use of Microsoft’s Windows Embedded Automotive operating system for its in-vehicle infotainment (IVI) systems and replace it by Blackberry’s QNX operating system.

Ford’s SYNC IVI platform, introduced in 2007 was well received by users, primarily because of Ford’s strategy to offer an open, easy to connect to environment. SYNC’s AppLink application allows easy connection to iPhone and Android devices and to user’s Pandora and Spotify accounts, podcast aggregators and other brought-in content. This is in stark contrast to the much closer nature of competitor’s systems such as GM’s OnStar. And unlike OnStar that targets users of luxury models, Ford was wise to offer SYNC on entry level models used by younger consumers such as Ford Focus and Fiesta.

But everything changed with the introduction of MyFord Touch in 2010. This IVI system experienced user interface flaws and instability from the get go. Its unreliability had lead J.D. Powers & Associates to rank Ford’s standing in the 2011 “Initial Quality Survey” of new car in 23rd place, down from fifth in 2010.

Although many of MyFord Touch’s issues have been fixed, Ford announced that its replacement, the upcoming SYNC 3, will go back to a simpler design and feature set and will be based on QNX software.  Ford joins a number of other automakers adopting standards-based QNX: a boost to QNX and a blow to Microsoft which has been blamed directly for the poor performance of MyFord Touch.

The designers of a confusing and unreliable user interface should not hide behind the design and presumed limitations of the underlying operating system. Ford needs to improve the overall IVI product development process, which, in the past, suffered program management challenges that had resulted in pushing scheduled and cutting corners to the detriment of quality.

Ford has reportedly collected 22,000 comments and suggestions for the design of SYNC 3. It will be quite a challenge to translate those into a cohesive solution. Over half of Ford’s North American vehicles will be equipped with Sync 3 by the end of 2016. Vehicles not equipped with Sync 3 will utilize the original Ford Sync.

 

Dec 27

Driver Health Monitoring

By Automotive, Autonomous, Connected, Electric, Shared Vehicles, Internet of Things (IoT) One Comment

Connected Cars and Driver Health Monitoring

I was working with a client on an Internet of Things (IoT) strategy specific to the connected cars industry. Everybody is on the quest for the next IoT’s “killer app”, hoping to get a piece of a pie that is estimated by some to exceed $40B in less than 5 years.

Among the many possibilities enabled by sensor-rich connected cars is using sensors embedded in the steering wheel and the driver’s seat to detect if the driver is about to have a heart attack or suffer another debilitating medical condition. Below is an excerpt from an article in Auto Connected Car News: Read More

Nov 12

Tesla’s Growing Pains

By Automotive, Autonomous, Connected, Electric, Shared Vehicles, Manufacturing One Comment

Tesla, the innovative company that continues to challenge the norms and practices of the traditional automotive industry is finding itself struggling with less glamorous issues that mainstream automakers have tackled and, to a great extent, perfected over more than a century: volume manufacturing.

Building a Supply Chain

According to a recent Bloomberg report, Tesla plans to increase sales by more than 50 percent this year to 35,000 units and accelerate annual production capacity to 100,000 units by the end of next year.

Back in August, during an earnings call, Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk discussed difficulties his company was having meeting market demand. Musk said suppliers are partly to blame because they are unable to fill Tesla’s orders: “some suppliers thought we wouldn’t be around, so they didn’t tool up for the production we actually experienced.”

Meeting Global Market Needs

While U.S. sales are responsible for about half of Tesla’s sales, its global business is healthy and growing, with strong sales in Norway (thanks to strong government incentives), followed by China. Japan, with the highest adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), should also be a strong market for Tesla, although the company opened its sales operations in Tokyo’s swanky Aoyama district only in September.

Tesla’s challenge isn’t mere production capacity. Tesla’s factory in Fremont, California, which was previously a joint venture between General Motors and Toyota, has a capacity of over half a million units per year.

Sustained success in global auto markets requires major design changes such as right-hand driving for countries like Japan, or expanding the back seat legroom for cars sold in China where target customers employ chauffeurs. Furthermore, different markets have different preferences of options, trims and accessories.  Accommodating regional differences adds significant complexity to manufacturing lines and supply chains, and, if not managed diligently, may also result in larger inventories and excessive quality spills and warranty expenses.

Tesla’s Growing Pains

Transitioning from small production series based on preorders with very long lead time to volume manufacturing is going to challenge Tesla’s manufacturing and logistics operations.

Tesla’s current manufacturing model will not be able to scale to meet global demand, especially in Europe. Currently, cars are built and tested in Fremont, California, then are partially disassembled and shipped to Tilburg, in the Netherlands, where the cars are reassembled and shipped to their final destination.

Tesla will have to be more accurate in forecasting market demand, and work with key suppliers to build a resilient and lean global supplier network. But given the still small market for Tesla cars this may prove harder and more expensive than Musk would have liked.

As the market for EVs mature and grows so will the demand for greater variety of styles and sizes. Here, Tesla has the right platform strategy in place: Model X crossover, a utility van and cabriolet are expected to be based on the second generation platform shared with the Model S. The partnership with Toyota, another company with a solid platform design strategy and strong reuse culture, will also help.