Efficient Product Development for IDEO 2002
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Efficient Product Development for IDEO 2002

on

  • 520 views

I was invited by the IDEO team in Palo Alto to share my product development process for designing systems for optimal efficiency. It turns out that there are a lot of common perspectives and ...

I was invited by the IDEO team in Palo Alto to share my product development process for designing systems for optimal efficiency. It turns out that there are a lot of common perspectives and techniques between IDEO’s processes and those of the Skunk Works and that I practice in product development.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
520
Views on SlideShare
515
Embed Views
5

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0

2 Embeds 5

http://www.linkedin.com 4
https://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Efficient Product Development for IDEO 2002 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. “Efficient Product Development” or “Creating a Revolution” IDEO 30 May 2002 David F. Taggart, CTO Hypercar, Inc., Basalt, CO dtaggart@hypercar.com DFT 053002 p 1/
  • 2. outline◊ Efficiency: what’s the difference◊ Strategy: why is this important◊ Team: what makes a good one◊ Revolution: the result◊ Risk: sure, but what do you do with it◊ Influence: market and industry pull◊ Opportunity: the next BIG leap?◊ Summary: parting thoughts◊ Questions DFT 053002 p 2/
  • 3. efficiency DFT 053002 p 3/
  • 4. efficiency◊ Improving it requires whole systems thinking and development◊ Power available vs power required◊ It must be a better product, not an efficient one◊ Every element of a closed system is interdependent◊ Dramatic improvements requires dramatic change DFT 053002 p 4/
  • 5. working backwards◊ Conventional design: from ◊ Hypercar® design: from fuel to wheels wheels back to fuel◊ ~7 units of fuel are used ◊ Radically cut the car’s to deliver 1 unit of energy mass and drag first to the wheels yielding compounding losses ◊ Each unit of energy saved at the wheels saves ~7◊ Since ~85% of the fuel units of fuel up front energy is lost in the yielding compounding engine, en route to the savings wheels, and in accessories, focus on incremental ◊ This makes several times reductions in those losses improvements in efficiency do-able DFT 053002 p 5/
  • 6. system efficiency / technology New applications of technologies:Reduce platform loads: • Advanced composite structure • Mass/inertia • Hybrid-electric drive • Thermal loads • Electronics & software intensive control • Aerodynamic drag • Efficient suspension, propulsion, and accessory technologies • Rolling resistance • Power transmission efficiency START FROM A CLEAN SHEET AND OPTIMIZE THE VEHICLE AS A SYSTEM Then provide required energy in an efficient, Must consider complete clean, and cost- production and overhead costs effective manner as well as cradle to grave costs to uncover practical solutions DFT 053002 p 6/
  • 7. strategy DFT 053002 p 7/
  • 8. going in position◊ The answer is not obvious, and could be perceived as having breakthrough performance◊ The new product must be a better product and not rely on its efficiency to sell it◊ Cost is the primary technological breakthrough◊ The solution must reflect production reality◊ Concise “functional” product requirements◊ Design “in the future”◊ Stack the deck in favor of innovation: process and people◊ You only have so much time and money: focus DFT 053002 p 8/
  • 9. the must haves◊ Similar in size to a mid-size SUV◊ Profitable at 50k/year◊ Greatly reduced life cycle operational costs (fuel, upgrades, depreciation, insurance, simplified maintenance and repair, on-board diagnostics)◊ Very low environmental footprint (SULEV, 100 mpg)◊ Tailorability (software upgrades, peripheral plug-ins, modularity, mass customization)◊ Be accompanied by a clear path to production for 2005 start Hypercar Foundation Platform Platform #1 Platform #2 Platform #3 ? DFT 053002 p 9/
  • 10. design in the futurePresent Paradigm New Paradigm(macro platform) (foundation platform) DFT 053002 p 10/
  • 11. process and people ENVIRONMENT INPUTS If we are to achieve results never before accomplished, we must employ BREAK FREE• Product requirements methods never before attempted. Sir Francis Bacon, Philosopher Present Paradigm New Paradigm (macro platform) (foundation platform) The process is as important as the people. David Taggart, Engineer• Technology toolboxes TWR TWR Vehicle Dynamics HI HI Integration TP Chris David TP Wright Cooper• Industry data Neil Simpson: David Cramer: Adrian Mitcham: David Taggart: Information/Control and Vehicle Design B ody 2 4% Ma ss Bre a kdow n: Industry Chas sis 17 % E lec trica l 4% Body 19% Co st B re akd o wn : In d u str y Ch assis 17% Electric al 6% TWR Group: Project Leader / Vehicle Electronics Core Team Core Team Program Manager / Composite Structures Technology Partnerships Tim Moore: SUPPORT NETWORK Specialists Advanced Technology and P ro pul sio n Propu lsio n Technology Partners 26 % Trim 28% Trim 29% 30% Total = $25,000 To tal C ost B reakd o w n: In du stry Sales /D ist/Warr 24% Fab. Shops Customer Requirements  Hypercar, Inc. Profit 11% As sembly 8% David Vince Serve Structure  C orp Ohd 5% 8% C hassis 6% Wareing Pendlebury Ploumen E lectrical Mfg. D ev. 4% 12% Advisors P ropuls ion Product Eng. 8% Trim 3% 11% Development blueprints TWR TWR • Information HI Propulsion HI  Investors and Control Customers Blueprint Format for a System Breakthrough Concept Features Assuming the current Areas What design features, if they were successfully integrated into the design of the system, Challenges TWR  paradigm, and would have the most significant considering the vehicle product impact on attacking drivers Considering the specific application of TP TP requirements, what this system, what are breakthroughs will be perceived as Design Philosophy Occupant required for this sub- sub- challenges in system to contribute What perspectives might enable integrating the design to the vehicle meeting the team to apply the blueprint features, philosophy, product requirements effectively during product and expanding HI Environment development design freedom to For each breakthrough best meet product area, list the drivers requirements RULES OF ENGAGEMENT that have a significant, unusual, Design Freedom or inordinately large influence on the What are areas the team can parameter identified explore to expand their design as requiring a freedom, allowing more breakthrough options, solutions, strategies, Evaluation and selection strategy TP than currently available• 1. Generate RESULTS, not activity Espouse effectiveness, not effort or hard work 2 Complete Preliminary 2. 1 Brainstorm & Sketch Layout Drawing 3. Keep Team Small: bring in fresh ideas/perspectives as needed 5 Summarize the Concept on the Be your WORD… deliver on your commitments Plate 4. Lockheed Advanc ed Development Company IATA Update Design PRELIMINARY CONCEPTS  3 4 FOM the Concept C ONCEPT TIT O verwing 1A LE C ONCEPT FAMILY I ntegr ated conve ntiona l ID DATE 03 FEB95 FOM SCOR E Tree ## 031 STRUCTURAL LAYOUT Drawin g: 0 020- 001 Inte gra te d Conv e ntiona l Fa m Sel ecti on FOM Matri x Ov e r/Un d e r Be n d in g Bu lk h e a Alte rn a te In te g ra te d F a m ily IA TA D ESIG N TRE E Last FOM U pdat e: 3/ 21/95 W in g /F u s e la g e T u b e 1 A STRU CT URA L CO NC EPTS Ov e r/Un d e r Be n d in g 1 A Qu a s i Mo n o c o q u e 1 A Pre s s u re Ve s s e l 1 A AL T RNAT CONC P T E E E S INT E GR T DCONVE NT A E IONAL INT E GR T DS UBSYS T MS A E E Rib b o n ize d Ce ll 1 A Ov e rwin g T u b e 1 A Mo d u la r T u b e 1 A Off th e W a ll 1 A Ro p e T ru s s 1 A Wi ng D es gn s i F usel g eD esi ns a g W i g/ Fu e age D esi n s n s l g Ce n te rlin e 1 A Ba c k b o n e 1 A Sid e b o d y 1 A Ov e rwin g 1 A Ha lfs h e ll 1 A Over w n g Tub e i P ess ur e V sel r es H f she l al Over / n der B di g B kh ead U en n ul Wi ng/ F usel age T ube Over w n g i S de bod y i S st msT ub e y e W n g c ompr s ed of i i Cy i n r c al Subs u c t r e l d i tr u Cl ams hel f s el ge i nt gr l l u a e a ne l I t gr a s par r ame/ ul head/ ar poi t /f b k h d ns W n g and Fus el ge c ompr s ed of u bes i a o t One pi c e bul up wi g - e t n W n s ub t uc t r at c hes at k ee s o i g sr ue t a l n de c i pt n s r o i Talk straight… say what YOU mean box bea s m t hat f c e t y r eac s f el pr s s ur ef i i n l t u e e u a t l l f s el ge/ ai c ams hell a TBE Cos to M a t nufacture and As m b Airfr ame S t uc se le r ture 1 00 P rt C u n t Re d c t o n a o u i 40 3 1. 2 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 .4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3.2 0 0 0 0 F ew er, i nteg rate d struc t ral c omp one nts u F rica tio S e n rio ab n c a 20 6 1. 2 0 0 0 0 8 1 .6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 .6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 Quasi - o noc oque M Mod ul r T ube a B ackb one 1 A & 2A Over / U nder B ndi ng e Wi ng/ Fu sel age I nt eg r t on ai LEVELS OF DECISION St f ned l a n at s i n , i e m i e k s n r I t eg al t l bo m k ee s o , and s d ebody ai o l n i Pr mar l oa s e ac t d by r ob s t wi g bo i y d r e u n x n r I t eg al s ar / a me/ b l k ead/ ar d oi n s p fr u h h p t D e c i pt o s r i n Cos t o f too i ng and fabri ca ti g nd v d ua l co mpo ne nts l n i i i e r duc ed s u s t u c t r e b r u 5. F rica tio R k ab n is 10 8 0. 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 .8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 .2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.4 0 0 0 0 CONC PT E DESIGN FEATURE S MFG/ ASSY FEATURES GE RAT IO NE N T ec hni ca l ri k of fab ri ati n sc en ari o s c o Ass e mb ly S e n rio c a 20 8 1. 6 0 0 0 0 4 0 .8 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 .2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 – T hre e ma jor sub assem blies: f uselage , tail – Sa ndwich c ould b e foa m or cor e. TBE boom , an d wing. – Multip e piece s mad e ba ck-to- back. l Eas e of as se mbl y, a ss emb y a cce ss , fi t u p, o e ran ce e t . l - t l c – F iber p laced or ta pe p a ced sandwich skins. l – Bo n r b s in place with E-b eam’e d i Ass e mb ly R k is 10 7 0. 7 0 0 0 0 7 0 .7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 .3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.5 0 0 0 0 – On e-pie ce wing s pars u sing f b er p lace, i join ts. T ec hni ca l ri k of as se mbl sc ena ri s y o RTM , VART M, o r cur efor m. R bbo ni zed C el l 1A , 2A i Wi g/ Fus el ge E g C at e n a g r C ent er i ne l Wi ng I nt gr at o n e i T tal Airfram e Co s t F OM Sco re o 55 . 0 0 5 .9 0 0 0 4 .7 0 0 0 0 6.1 0 0 – In dividual rib piec es using RTM , VART M, o r M a r o- el u ar u bs t uc t r c c l l s r ue Sl ot d a s embl of w n g u s el ge e s t y c ompon nt e s i /f a Subs t u t r e at t c he t c ent r n e rc u a s a e i l D e c i pt o s r i n Vehic Desig and Perfor m le n ance 1 00 cure form . (as a p lica b to mo d er n L fig te r typ e a rc ra ft) p le , O h i – On e-pie ce F uselag e fra mes u sing RT M, Ap li ab il ty to o e rAirc raft p c i th 35 6 2. 1 0 0 0 0 8 2 .8 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2.8 0 0 0 0 VART M, or cur efor m. TBE Can des g n/mfg co nc ep t b e bro adl y u t i ze d i il – Bend n g ta ken in wi g. i n We g h t P y-o ff i a 15 6 0. 9 0 0 0 0 6 0 .9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.6 0 0 0 0 Is ap pro ach struc t ral y c e an / ffi en t/ e ga nt u l l e ci el B ENEFIT S RISKS P ck ag in a g 15 7 1. 1 0 0 0 0 7 1 .1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.8 0 0 0 0 – In tegr ation of spa rs, r b s, an d skins in to a i – Pe rm anten tly seale d wing b ox. D ow nsel ec t 1 D ow nse ec t 2 l D ow nsel ect 3 Doe s ap pro ac h i mi or enh a nce p ac ka gi g free do m l t n single wing bo x compo nen t. – Requ r es de velopm ent o f E-be am i – In tegra l tailbo om co mpo nent. join ts. Des c r t o n p i i D e c i pt o s r i n Des c r t o n p i i Acce s s 15 6 0. 9 0 0 0 0 6 0 .9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.6 0 0 0 0 CONC PT E – T ailore d laod path in fra me s. Ac ce ss for i ns t l ati n of Sub Sys tems a o DE L OPM E VE NT ANDS E L CT E ION Ac ce ss for ma n t nac e of s ub -sys tems a nd v eh cl e i e i TBE TBE TBE Mo d larity (M i s io an d r S rv i e Ad ap tive ) u s n /o e c 10 3 0. 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 .3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 .3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.3 0 0 0 0 Path to production Is ap pro ach ame nab e to mo du ar d es gn con ce pts l l i Page ## Listen straight… Listen to what is BEING SAID, not what YOU think is R p air e 10 3 0. 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 .3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 .3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.3 0 0 0 0 Do d esi gn / fg con ce pt fea t res l mi t o r e nha nc e rep ai rab l t y m u i ii F n al C onc ept i Des c r pt n i oi T tal Veh icle De s i n a n Perfo rm an ce F o g d OM Sc ore 56 . 0 0 6 .3 0 0 0 4 .4 0 0 0 0 5.4 0 0 FINAL CONCE PT Co ce p t T OT AL n DE L OPM E VE NT ANDS E L CT E ION Cos t Sco re 5. 5 0 0 5 .9 0 0 0 4 .7 0 0 0 0 6.1 0 0 TBE Des g n/P rforma nce Sc ore i e 5. 6 0 0 6 .3 0 0 0 4 .4 0 0 0 0 5.4 0 0 T otal A se ss ment = Cos t x Des g n/P rforman ce s i e 31 0 0 37 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 Ranking ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 6.• being said Level of Core Team Activities Support Team Activities Detail 7. Revolution vs. Evolution: High risk and unconventional IS the Immersion ◊ Get on same page regarding program ◊ Define strategy / blueprint convention PROGRAM CONTROLS plan, strategies, objectives, deliverables ◊ Establish evaluation criterion ◊ Review, assimilate, and put in forehead ◊ Align on product requirements 8. Use time effectively, and don’t waste other peoples time (be on time “key” information ◊ Align on schedule for meetings) • Expectations of each core team leader are Exploration ◊ Create range of vehicle concepts from familiar to “out there” ◊ List big issues and desirable features 9. There are no colors to ideas, they are simply ideas to be considered clearly understood and owned ◊ Brainstorm potential solutions ◊ Each includes a complete set of sub ◊ Evolve, separate and identify by the team system concepts ◊ Evaluate options and down select 10. Substantiation of issues must match the level of detail and/or the • Measurements of progress are clear and in ◊ Evaluate concepts and down select 2 most attractive system solutions ◊ Everything must earn its way on board criticality of the decision place and checked regularly ◊ Down select attractive options Evaluation ◊ Take concepts to next level of detail ◊ Outline bill of materials 11. Respect the people you work with and expect their respect in return Disciplined comparisons of expectations to ◊ Attempt to have complete system ◊ Completely identify and evaluate • ◊ Evaluate cost, weight, performance, and remaining issues / options / solutions 12. Ideas are useless unless communicated to the team current status are applied “goodness” ◊ Down select “candidate solution” ◊ Evaluate vehicle performance to distinguish merit, assess sub-system 13. Question absolutes from a clean sheet, brainstorm, experiment options NOT ACCEPTABLE: the words can’t, but, should, not possible, • Timely corrective actions designed to meet ◊ Down select final sub-system concept 14. bureaucracy, not responsible, not my job, non-value documentation objectives, schedule, and/or budget are Final ◊ Take candidate solution to final level of ◊ Detail out remaining issues, close Definition detail to support credible “production” decisions to yield one complete sub- Communication, clarity, focus and action is the path to success defined and implemented cost, weight, and performance estimates system definition 15. DFT 053002 p 11/ ◊ Complete technical demonstrations ◊ Estimate cost, weight, and performance Effective Team = Powerful Concepts = Successful Program ◊ Contribute to technical demonstration
  • 12. development blueprints◊ A tool to focus the team’s effort, increase chances of uncovering valuable possibilities, avoid non-value paths◊ They get better at the end of a program◊ Most effective when an intimate understanding exists of the drivers, technologies, and challenges◊ A living document... a starting point that is refined◊ Only effective if you have an awareness of what goes into them, if you use them, and if you refine them◊ There is no right way to do them, “what works” is the success criterion DFT 053002 p 12/
  • 13. where it fitsProduct requirements Handling and control Provide handling at primary design point (e.g., curb As specified (with the Subaru Note that handling of high-quality European mass + driver) notably improved over conventional Forester, Lexus RX-300, and Renault sedans has, according to certain reviews, been counterparts in terms of first-mode body stiffness, Espace as benchmark vehicles for achieved by the Renault Espace mini-van maintenance of contact-patch over road surface comparison), but open to further May be desirable to explore active, semi-active, irregularities, maximum skid-pad lateral acceleration, interpretation by design team or regenerative systems to surpass benchmarks anti-dive when braking, and anti-sway when cornering, while handling fundamental design issues with only minimal degradation at GVW. Safety and Safe braking, handling, and control appropriately As specified Anticipate later development of means for crashworthiness insensitive to specified payload ran ge handling product variants Improved (relative to conventional) crash avoidance and single-vehicle crash behavior Crash compatibility (with other vehicles on the road) should be on par with conventional counterparts Light on impact with collision partner to minimize lia bility for damage to other vehicles or property Interior, NVH, and Ergonomics Interior climate control Provide improved interior climate on entry to vehicle HVAC, coupled with vehicle design Note that HVAC loads were omitted from after hot or cold soak and reduced time to achieve (passive thermal management), must technical analysis conducted by Lotus desired comfort level (why redueced time?) meet requirements for attaining and Engineering and have been determined otherwise maintaining thermal comfort over the to play an important role in vehicle fuel economy Provide seating with inherently better thermal comfort standard range of automotive ambient Minimize associated energy consumption test conditions for the US Experience: Interior trim Provide seating with improved ergon omic support and As specified—open to design team Trim required only for primary touch surfaces ease of removal or re-configuration (rear seating interpretation and to maintain visual continuity locations) Maximize washable surfaces and similar low- or easy- maintenance characteristics General ergonomics Good lines of sight for backing up, tight spaces, and Design focused on carrying, and providing lane changes optimized access to, tools, supplies, and technical equipment for improved worker health/safety and • Drivers efficiency (including improved sight lines); Noise, vibration, & Should be improved with respect to minimizing the At least comparable to conventional Special attention should be paid to transmission harshness (NVH) typical compromise between NVH and handling of noise and vibration through body & structure Fuel system Any that does not prevent other requirements being met Open Should aid in achieving other requirements • Technologies • Application Generate possible solutions that meet Identify the keyproduct requirements “breakthrough” areas Fabrication • Complexity of parts • Processes used • Number of parts • Labor content Procurement • Advanced technology • All fabrication issues • Complexity of components • Fit-up/tolerance Assembly • Labor content Disintegrate and interfaces • Labor content • Factory overhead • Number of parts • Number of parts Inventory • Lead time • Turnover the drivers • Answering customers • Cycle time, # of yahoo’s Product Development current value target • Lost of parts affect value • System wide changes • Value constrained to amenity and performance Quality Control • Post inspection • Robust manufacture Apply blueprint to inform the • Complex system of subs • Variety of processes Production Scale-up • Diverse requirements • Variety of equipment • Production v performance • Training and engineering program activities: Integrated Structure Blueprint brainstorming, investigations, Concept Features Concept Features •• Fastenerless Assembly Fastenerless Assembly Structural Weight Structural Weight •• Global Complexity vs Local Strategize on Global Complexity vs Local •• Design Design •• Multi-Functional Components Multi-Functional Components •• Material Density Material Density •• Tailored and Continuous Load Tailored and Continuous Load •• Singular Function Singular Function Paths/Transitions Paths/Transitions Challenges Challenges analyses •• Assembly Related Assembly Related •• Repeatable Performance Repeatable Performance •• LDF Stamping, RFI w/ Preforms, ... Body Structure •• Load Redistribution Load Redistribution LDF Stamping, RFI w/ Preforms, ... Preforms, Body Structure •• Out-of-Plane Loading Out-of-Plane Loading •• Stability Stability •• Low Cost Assembly Low Cost Assembly a blueprint •• Cycle Time & Rate Cycle Time & Rate •• In Process Color In Process Color Integration Integration Production Cost Production Cost •• Integration of Components Integration of Components •• Structural Stability Structural Stability •• Service Environment Service Environment •• Integrate Design w/ Material Integrate Design w/ Material •• Energy Absorption Energy Absorption Quality Misc •• Integrate Design w/ Mfg.Processes Integrate Design w/ Mfg.Processes Material Realistic Solution Realistic Solution Fabrication •• Production Performance Production Performance Assembly •• Production Costs Production Costs Expand Design Freedom Expand Design Freedom •• Applicability Applicability •• Geometry Geometry •• RM&S RM&S •• Touch Labor Touch Labor •• Process Capabilities Process Capabilities •• Part Count & Complexity Part Count & Complexity •• Materials Capabilities Materials Capabilities •• Overall Cost Effectiveness Overall Cost Effectiveness •• Packaging // Installation // RM&S of Production Scenario Packaging Installation RM&S of Production Scenario DFT 053002 p 13/
  • 14. team DFT 053002 p 14/
  • 15. team environment◊ Need diversity across any measure◊ Need relevant experience and knowledge◊ Need a clear mission◊ Need some form of structure◊ Communicate expectations and cause accountability◊ Measurements of progress are clear and checked regularly, with timely corrective actions made◊ COMMUNICATION is paramount◊ Espouse effectiveness, not effort or hard work◊ Generate results, not activity◊ Question “absolutes”◊ Respect others and expect their respect DFT 053002 p 15/
  • 16. unique synthesis of expertise◊ Best practice aerospace systems-engineering  Skunk Works breakthrough product development  Right-the-first-time design practice DFT 053002 p 16/
  • 17. unique synthesis of expertise◊ Best practice aerospace systems-engineering◊ Entrepreneurial spirit & motorsport heritage DFT 053002 p 17/
  • 18. unique synthesis of expertise◊ Best practice aerospace systems-engineering◊ Entrepreneurial spirit & motorsport heritage◊ Rigor of high-volume auto industry DFT 053002 p 18/
  • 19. revolution DFT 053002 p 19/
  • 20. revolution◊ Sport utility crossover DFT 053002 p 20/
  • 21. revolution Chevy Blazer Revolution◊ Sport utility crossover◊ Seats five comfortably DFT 053002 p 21/
  • 22. revolution◊ Sport utility crossover◊ Seats five comfortably◊ Accelerates 0–60 mph in 8.1 s DFT 053002 p 22/
  • 23. revolution◊ Sport utility crossover◊ Seats five comfortably◊ Accelerates 0–60 mph in 8.1 s◊ 330-mile range on 7.5 lb H2 DFT 053002 p 23/
  • 24. revolution◊ Sport utility crossover◊ Seats five comfortably◊ Accelerates 0–60 mph in 8.1 s◊ 330-mile range on 7.5 lb H2◊ Designed for tailorability, reliability, and long life DFT 053002 p 24/
  • 25. revolution◊ Sport utility crossover◊ Seats five comfortably◊ Accelerates 0–60 mph in 8.1 s◊ 330-mile range on 7.5 lb H2◊ Designed for tailorability, reliability, and long life◊ 99 mpg equivalent (5 Lexus RX-300) DFT 053002 p 25/
  • 26. revolution◊ Sport utility crossover H 2O◊ Seats five comfortably H 2O H 2O H 2O H2O H 2O◊ Accelerates 0–60 mph in 8.1 s◊ 330-mile range on 7.5 lb H2 H 2O H 2O H 2O◊ Designed for tailorability, H 2O reliability, and long life H 2O◊ 99 mpg equivalent (5 Lexus RX-300) H 2O H 2O H 2O H2O H 2O◊ tailpipe emissions are hot water vapor H 2O H 2O H 2O H 2O DFT 053002 p 26/
  • 27. revolution◊ Sport utility crossover◊ Seats five comfortably◊ Accelerates 0–60 mph in 8.1 s◊ 330-mile range on 7.5 lb H2◊ Designed for tailorability, reliability, and long life◊ 99 mpg equivalent (5 Lexus RX-300)◊ tailpipe emissions are hot water vapor◊ a fighter on wheels DFT 053002 p 27/
  • 28. packaging / configuration Thermal Motors 35-kW Fuel Cell PowerManagement for each wheel converter HVAC Composite Adaptive Load leveling Composite suspensionsuspension batteries Hydrogen tanks DFT 053002 p 28/
  • 29. vehicle dynamics •All-wheel digital traction, stability, and braking Rear Trailing Arm Upper WishboneFront Subframe Lower Wishbone Front Knuckle DFT 053002 p 29/
  • 30. occupant environment DFT 053002 p 30/
  • 31. summary of the RevolutionUncompromised Performance Breakthrough Design & Manufacturing◊ Matches or beats conventional platforms in ◊ Platform-based versatility style, comfort, performance, and safety ◊ Breaks into profitable 50k niche volumes◊ 99 mpg equivalent on H2 gas ◊ Powerful onboard information network w/◊ Zero emissions fault tolerant power supply & distribution◊ Cost competitive in a variety of variants ◊ Brake, power, traction, and steer by-wire near term or longer term ◊ Bonded, lightweight Carbon/TP structure◊ It is desirable by any measure ◊ Innovative vehicle assembly ideal for niche variants DFT 053002 p 31/
  • 32. so how about that mass reduction?“Fat men cannot run as fast as thin men, but we build most ofour vehicles as though dead-weight fat increased speed….Icannot imagine where the delusion that weight meansstrength came from….“…[Lightweight cars] would also go faster and consume lessfuel. Reducing weight usually involved reducing materials,which, in turn, meant reducing cost as well….” —Henry Ford DFT 053002 p 32/
  • 33. it is hard work Conventional RevolutionSystem Vehicle Mass Mass Difference (kg) (kg)Structure 430 187 -56.6%Propulsion 468 288 -38.4% Chassis 306 201 -34.2% Electrical 72 33 -53.6% Trim 513 143 -72.1% Fluids 11 4 -62.0% Total 1,800 857 -52.4% DFT 053002 p 33/
  • 34. risk DFT 053002 p 34/
  • 35. risk management◊ Awareness and tracking are crucial◊ Tools:  Path to production criterion enforces ability to scale-up for production within 5 year timeframe  “Top five” risk tracking  Building block development approach◊ Foundation platform represents the desired fuel efficient architecture…  Now that we have an idea what it looks like and costs, alternate energy generating options can be evaluated and integrated to address availability, cost, market opportunities, regulatory mandates…◊ Commercialization  Borderline technologies have fallbacks  Customer acceptance  Customer pull (awareness)  Regulations and change  Robustness DFT 053002 p 35/
  • 36. “top five’s” at various levelsTop Five Program RisksUnanticipated technological challenges/ Low Cost/Timing Rigorously apply PD gameplan, TPinsufficient program timing involvementInsufficient TP participation Medium Cost/Timing Extensive collaboration, TP liaisonsLegal compliance Medium Product Involve regulatory bodies, define fallbacksUnfocused product requirements Low Cost/Product Disciplined focus on must-havesConventional creep Medium Product Awareness and commitment to outcomeTop Five System Level RisksDevelopment of VIMaCS High Product/Cost Utilize industry standard development tools and protocolsIntegration of crash, fail safe, and High Product/Cost Apply system-focused requirementsvehicle safety systemsAvailability of development and test High Timing TP relationships and clear commitmentshardwareMeeting desired production cost target Medium Cost/Timing Insure required investment is available to maintain program focus and momentumHaving the vehicle engender driver Medium Awareness Involve customers early, maintainconfidence despites its unique occupant focus of VIMaCStechnology and interface DFT 053002 p 36/
  • 37. influence DFT 053002 p 37/
  • 38. automotive industry◊ Seeing the same trends in many 45 3.5 sectors: much higher differentiation, 40 3 lower volumes of distinctive 35 Volume (millions) variants, platform engineering 30 2.5 across the spectrum Models 25 2 20 1.5 15 1 10 5 0.5 0 0 50,000 75,000 100,000 150,000 Vehicles/year Number of car models Cumulative volume of cars produced DFT 053002 p 38/
  • 39. automotive industry U.S. Dept. of Commerce:Detroit market share slipped more than 2% in 2001 KPMG LLP Survey of Detroit Executives DFT 053002 p 39/
  • 40. advantages for manufacturers◊ Mass customization  Modular, low cost assembly at niche-size volumes 14 major components, hand- liftable, self-fixturing, bonded assembly DFT 053002 p 40/
  • 41. advantages for manufacturers◊ Mass customization  Modular, low cost assembly at niche-size volumes◊ High degree of design flexibility  Exterior skins tailorable to individual market niches  Achieve economies of common components  “Platform” engineering DFT 053002 p 41/
  • 42. advantages for manufacturers◊ Mass customization  Modular, low cost assembly at niche-size volumes◊ High degree of design flexibility  Exterior skins tailorable to individual market niches  Achieve economies of common components  “Platform” engineering◊ Lower financial risk of composite design and plug and play assembly  Lower fixed cost  Modular equipment investment can be tailored for volume  Permits diverse model portfolio  Comparable total production cost DFT 053002 p 42/
  • 43. opportunity DFT 053002 p 43/
  • 44. history of development progress First Flights of R&D Air Vehicles 25 ◊ History has seen dramatic 20 swings in development progress # First Flights 15 10 5 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 YearEvent: WWII Korea Vietnam Cold War Two Fronts TerrorismTechnology: Jet Overall AC Stealth technologies ??? Propulsion Performance DFT 053002 p 44/
  • 45. what will make a difference Experience “People who seemi.e. the steadyis a concentration of a few goodof “experience, to have a new "The Skunk Works buildup and maintenance people idea, have often time through far in advance - and atby doing, is expertise over just problems constant learning a fraction of the solving stopped having an old idea” critical in the cost-effective design and development of cost - by applying the simplest, most straightforward successful military aircraft” RAND “The Cutting Edge” methods possible to develop and“Invention is a sudden cessation of new products." produce stupidity” Kelly L. Johnson Edwin LandTechnological Leadership Leap DFT 053002 p 45/
  • 46. fuel efficiency as the next big leapBenefits of 5x improvement in fuel efficiency:◊ Oil savings:  U.S. potential = 8 Mbbl/day = 1 Saudi Arabia = 42 ANWARs  World potential = 1 OPEC◊ Lead a fast transition to a hydrogen economy◊ Energy efficient platforms, in one single act, improves:  Expeditionary reaction time  National security  National independence of foreign oil  Time on station of any vehicle  Range and payload of any vehicle  Radical reduction in logistical tails and fuel costs in-theatre  Major strategic and tactical advantage for many years to come  Local air quality, with global implications◊ “Air pollution takes more lives than murder, AIDS, and traffic accidents combined” Environmental Working Group, Washington DFT 053002 p 46/
  • 47. summary DFT 053002 p 47/
  • 48. summary◊ It’s process and people that makes the difference◊ Get clear on the priorities◊ The power of innovation◊ Build, test, and fail early◊ There is no substitute for experience◊ Whole systems view is essential to maximize design freedom◊ Breakthroughs require:  a huge commitment  strong experienced leadership and team  faith that a solution does exist  managing your risks, building, testing, and stacking the deck! DFT 053002 p 48/
  • 49. thank you dtaggart@hypercar.com“A Scientist discovers that which exists… …an Engineer creates that which never was” Theodore von Karman“Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it… …Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it” Goethe“The world that we have made as a result of the level of thinking we have done thus far, creates problems that we cannot solve at the same level we create them at” Albert Einstein DFT 053002 p 49/