Slide 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.