Slide 1

Page 1

Innovation Strategy under Uncertainty Why was the Electric Car never a success? ­ a critical analysis by Group 007


Assumptions 

Is the focus on the electric car or the battery? Why focus on a battery. Other technologies could emerge in the future. No discussion


Today’s Assignment 

Main question is, explain why the electric car has never been successfully developed commercially?

The intuitive answer is, the electric never lived up to customer needs


Rosenberg, 1995 

Potential uses  Functional requirements unchanged

Complementary innovations  Low weight battery storage capacity  Sources of power supply

System integration


Rosenberg, 1995 (cont.) 

Problem­solving myopia 

Environmental friendly transportation concerning the battery technology, let alone the electric car.

Passing ”the needs” test 

trajectory of vehicle performance never intersected the trajectory of market needs.

Competing with the past 

Existing engine technologies under constant incremental development Traditional car enthusiasm


Rosenberg conclusion 

 

Remains as a complementary analytical tool, providing the overview of uncertainty. Includes stakeholders Answer can be identified from analyzing:   

Complementary innovations, ie. the battery Satisfaction of customer needs Competition with the past


Christensen, 1996 

Is the electric car a disruptive innovation? (Runes graf nedenunder)

Is there a market for electric cars ­ ?


Christensen, 1996 (cont.) 

Strategic aspect   

Product ­ creating a simple product Technology ­ development of battery Distribution – convincing sales teams

Organizational context


Christensen conclusion 

Assuming the existing electric car technology, the main problem has been to identify the correct niche markets. Establishing the correct organizational context.


Courtney et. al., 1997 

Uncertainty Level 

Strategic implications  

Reserve the right to play Clearly adapters with shaper visions

Portfolio of Actions 

Hybrid Level 1+2

Options – balancing big payoffs with minimizing cost.


Courtney et. al. conclusion 

Theoretical problem: assuming that technologies are inherently successful. What if the technology is a failure? Difficult to assess why the electric car failed, using Courtney et. al. Big bets are inherently always the right solution.


Stakeholder analysis 

The hypercube Model (Afuah, XXXX)    

Other factors  

Customers Suppliers Complementary innovators Innovator Oil­producers Political interests (Greenpeace etc.)


Summary 

Rosenberg is looking for ”bigger batteries”. Christensen is looking for alternative niche markets. Courtney is looking for choosing the right strategy, assuming a technological success.


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.