The document provides details about the development of the Joule Electric Vehicle (EV) by Optimal Energy, a South African startup company. It discusses how developing an EV from scratch requires a different approach than traditional automotive processes, which are optimized for incremental improvements. The document outlines some of the unique challenges of developing an EV, including pricing, mechanical architecture due to the battery placement, and electrical architecture given the central role of electronics. It also describes how Optimal Energy developed a tailored systems engineering process to guide the Joule EV's development from initial concepts to building prototypes while addressing these unique EV challenges.

1. 26th
Annual INCOSE International Symposium (IS 2016)
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, July 18-21, 2016
Learning Systems Engineering Lessons from an
Electric Vehicle Development
Gerhard Swart
Director, Alphadot (Pty) Ltd
31 Second Ave, Melkbosstrand, Cape Town, South Africa
Telephone: +27 (83) 291 5148
gerhard@alphadot.co.za
Copyright © 2016 by Gerhard Swart. Published and used by INCOSE with permission1
.
Abstract. The Joule Electric Vehicle (EV) was developed “from a clean sheet” by Optimal
Energy, a South African start-up company established in 2005. In the seven years to its
liquidation in 2012, the company grew to 108 people, built up significant international
partnerships, developed substantial in-house technology and performed three development
iterations culminating in four market-testable prototypes.
Developing a vehicle from scratch requires a different approach to the traditional automotive
development processes, which are optimised for evolutionary vehicle improvements and cost
reduction.
Developing a new EV in a new organisation without legacy processes or manufacturing
infrastructure presents additional challenges but also provides opportunity to work “top-down”,
focussing on the real “mission requirements” instead of being trapped by legacy practices,
design concepts and infrastructure. Systems engineering “best practices” may be applied to a
larger extent and the concept of passenger mobility can be optimised for electric propulsion
instead of accepting the traditions of fossil-fuel power.
This paper provides highlights of the unique challenges and opportunities related to EVs, and
presents the tailored development process that was established for the Joule EV.
Introduction
The author has in a previous paper introduced Optimal Energy as a start-up company with the
purpose of “establishing and leading the Electric Vehicle industry in South Africa and
expanding globally” (Swart, 2015). The paper reports on the funding, organisational highlights,
commercialisation requirements, development process and subsequent difficulties of the
organisation.
After briefly re-introducing the Joule EV itself, the author will now present a typical
automotive development process and highlight several challenges that indicate the need for a
different process for the Joule EV development. Finally the author will show how the
automotive process was merged with a tailored Systems Engineering process to become the
development process for the Joule.
1
Originally presented at the INCOSE South Africa 2015 Conference under the title “Learning Systems
Engineering Lessons from the Joule EV Development”, but re-written to reduce its regional focus.

2. The initial EV concept developed by the company was minimalistic and not particularly
attractive, but as the real customer needs and desires were understood the Joule emerged as an
attractive mid-sized passenger car, with competitive performance and features (see Figure 1
below).
As a full 5-seater C-segment vehicle with a top speed of 135km/h and 0-60km/h acceleration of
less than 5s, the Joule was competitive with its petrol and diesel cousins. It was designed to
achieve an NCAP 5-star safety rating and came with a luxurious internet-ready telematics suite.
It was well received at various international automotive shows and after Car Magazine’s test
team drove several prototypes in 2011 they featured it in the April 2011 edition, concluding:
“It’s good. Very good in fact.” (Oosthuizen, 2011).
Figure 1. The Joule EV Exterior and Interior
A detailed description of the Joule and its technologies is beyond the scope of this paper, but
Table 1 below provides some its key characteristics.
Table 1. Joule key characteristics
Top Speed: 135 km/h Battery: 32kWh, 350V, 200 000km life
Acceleration 0-60 km/h: 5s Range per charge: 230km (NEDC cycle.)
Vehicle class: C-segment MPV with 5 seats
and large luggage compartment
Recharge time: 1h with off-board charger,
8h using household 220v
Braking: regenerative and discs with ABS,
100-0 km/h in 3s
User Interfaces: Integrated info-telematics,
internet connectivity and ability to load Apps
Target Price (excl. battery which follows a
rental model) : €26 000 (before
consideration of subsidies)
Electric motor: STM type, 70kW peak
Safety rating: airbags, NCAP 5-star Options: three luxury levels, PV on roof,
small or large battery
Four third-generation roadworthy prototype vehicles (called PEV) were built (Figure 2),
incorporating the key Joule features and technologies, for the purpose of validating
requirements in the target market and evaluating various aesthetic and technical concepts.
These vehicles completed 38 000km of testing before the company was closed in 2012.

3. Figure 2. The Four Roadworthy Joule PEV Prototypes
The PEV prototypes were the forerunner to the vehicle industrialisation phase, which would
re-engineer the vehicle and its parts to reduce cost and establish manufacturing capacity to
produce 50 000 per year, the estimated volume required to achieve profitability. An extensive
multi-national team was built to meet this development, marketing and manufacturing
challenge.
Legacy Automotive Development Approach
Although every automotive manufacturer produces unique vehicles that embody their specific
brand values, each vehicle having emerged from differing development processes and having
divergent manufacturing, costing and marketing strategies, the author will make some
generalisations for the sake of comparison. Statements concerning the existing automotive
industry are thus not based on conclusive research but should rather be seen as generalisations
and considered opinion that have developed through several years of direct interaction with the
many automotive engineers and organisations.
Although South Africa does have a number of local assembly plants for conventional vehicles
(most of which also serve the export market), it should be noted that no complete vehicle
development facility existed locally prior to the founding of Optimal Energy.
The key objective for any business is making a profit for the shareholders. Global automakers
are no different and achieve this mostly through after-sales income. The vehicle itself is
actually quite expensive to manufacture and the margins are low. This is especially true
considering that a car may comprise of more than 1800 parts, each requiring a factory to make
it. This creates great technical and organisational complexity, where the vehicle assembly plant
operated by the OEM is simply the tip of a huge supply-chain iceberg.
In small and medium sized vehicles (the so-called A, B and C segments), where there is fierce
market competition and limited brand premium paid by the customer, it is particularly vital to
have high-volume manufacture to achieve economies of scale. It has thus become a
fundamental practice for automakers to re-use as many components as possible between their
various models, even sharing parts with their competitors.
What is unique between successive vehicle models is most often only the aesthetic styling and
minor variations introduced to create a unique experience for the customer. It is not uncommon
for successive models to have exactly the same steel body, suspension and engine, but to have
different lights, interior trimming and different exterior plastic trimming.

4. As a result, the typical process for developing a new vehicle model is an evolutionary one,
starting with what is available. Even a radically new model would normally retain two of the
three major cost/risk items: platform (chassis, suspension and interior); drivetrain (engine and
gearbox); or assembly plant.
The development processes of the major automotive companies are kept confidential, but
Magna Steyr in Austria does contract development and manufacture of entire vehicles for
OEMs, and have published their process. Figure 3 shows their vehicle-level development
process from concept up to Start of Production (SoP).
Figure 3. An example Automotive Product Development Process (Magna Steyr, 2015)
What feeds into this development process is the high-level vehicle requirement (including
target market, new styling, constraints on re-use of a prior model “carry-over parts” and
assembly plant details) and newly available part technologies that may provide an advantage.
In defining the Joule EV development process it was necessary to question whether this
process, which is largely evolutionary, was suitable for a new company with no legacy
products, parts or production infrastructure. However, if a pure top-down Systems Engineering
approach was followed, it would still be important to maximise “off-the-shelf” parts to achieve
the product cost targets. In addition it would be necessary to retain elements of automotive
terminology and processes to allow engagement with the existing automotive industry. But
first one had to decide whether an EV was simply the electrification of a “normal” car, or
whether a clean-sheet approach was required to achieve the design goals.
Are Electric Vehicles Really Different?
Although some of the first automobiles invented were actually electric, the abundance of fossil
fuel and the Henry Ford legacy has for a century shaped cars to be mechanical devices with
electronics added for convenience and safety. The hot, noisy engine is the centrepiece that
dominates the vehicle layout because of its size, weight and noise. Through the years electronic
features such as electric windows, air bags and electronic engine controls were progressively
added. Loureiro found that for modern vehicles rich in electronics and software, “an
interdisciplinary, collaborative approach to derive, evolve and verify a life-cycle balanced

5. system can deliver better results that meets customer expectations and public acceptability.
This approach is systems engineering.” (Loureiro, 1999).
Two additional reasons to consider an alternative development process are the disruptive
nature of Electric Vehicles, and the specific South African context, where a small company had
to penetrate a market against the established automotive industry.
What the Customer Wants
It is easy for engineers to think that they are a representative sample of their product’s market.
It was a hard lesson for the Joule team to learn that “the voice of the customer” must actually be
allowed to speak, even against better technical judgement, to have the final say in a product.
Nowhere is this more important than in the car industry where vehicles are purchased by
housewives, doctors, scientists, shopkeepers and even grandmothers, from all walks of life,
most with little or no technical insight. The final purchase decision is normally an emotional
one, dominated by subjective elements such as the “feel” of the vehicle, visual attractiveness
and even the sounds and smells. Functionality is important, but in the end, the buyer desires the
product and if it is affordable (or perhaps even if it is not), will purchase.
It is, however, the way a vehicle looks that is arguably the most important instrument to
awaken the purchasing desire in the potential customer. The emotional appeal of a vehicle’s
appearance is overlooked by many engineers and led many earlier EV attempts to their grave.
Converting an existing fossil fuel vehicle into electric simply would not break the
pre-conceived impressions of the original petrol/diesel vehicle. Through the help of Keith
Helfet, the renowned Jaguar designer, Joule was conceived with a fresh and unique look, and
judging from the global media and public response, awoke the desire that was needed.
In establishing whether an EV deserves a fresh engineering approach, let us also interrogate
three aspects that may or may not be unique in the eyes of the customer: the purchase price of
the vehicle, its mechanical architecture and its electrical architecture.
Pricing an Electric Vehicle
Introducing a totally new EV like the Joule at a competitive price, in the face of established
competition, is difficult. The new technologies incorporated into an EV, particularly the
Battery System, Power Electronics and Drive Motor, had not yet benefited from high-volume
global production. Although one could save around €6 000 from the cost of a typical sedan by
leaving out the engine, the additional cost of these EV components, even when making 50 000
per year (the planned Joule production rate), adds back more than €14 000. For most customers
this €8 000 premium would prohibit them from switching to an EV. This dilemma has held
back EV development in the automotive industry, to the point that in 2008 Nancy Gioia, then
Ford Motor Corporation’s Director of Global Electrification, said: “We now believe that
Electric Vehicles are the way forward, we just don’t know how to make money from it.” 2
If however, a new approach to the business model is followed, it suddenly does make sense: A
vehicle owner travelling, 30 000 km per year to work and back, who switched to an EV, would
pay around €550 for electricity instead of €2 350 for fuel, saving an estimated €1 800 per year
and have lower vehicle servicing costs. If this saving was used to purchase the battery over its
lifetime (i.e. leasing it) then the vehicle price could be reduced to a competitive level.
2
Heard by the author at the 2008 SAE conference where Nancy Gioia was a speaker.

6. Establishing the relationship between the performance that the customer desires (e.g. vehicle
range, acceleration and top speed) and the commensurate price they would be willing to pay is
non-trivial. The technical implications of the customer’s desires have to be determined and
filtered through engineering trade-offs and fed into the business model before establishing
them as formal target requirements.
Ultimately though, the asking price for the Joule would be established through a combination
of market research, “market clinics” with potential customers and benchmarking against
competitors. Out of the mix, a vehicle cost/performance combination was found that was
incorporate into the User Requirement.
Vehicle Mechanical Architecture
As alluded to earlier, the mechanical layout and structure of a conventional vehicle is largely
influenced by the large, heavy, noisy device which we call the engine. Its need for frequent
maintenance drives the requirement for a hood and engine compartment, whilst its bulk and
mass impact the crash-safety design and driveability of the vehicle. EVs on the other hand,
require very little maintenance, the electric motor is small and cool, whilst instead the battery is
large and heavy.
Trying to package the EV parts into a conventional vehicle body is thus clearly sub-optimal.
Some automotive companies initially failed to recognise this, resulting in EV offerings with
severely compromised handling through the increased vehicle mass and luggage compartments
half-full of batteries.
The Joule mechanical layout centred on the occupants, but the battery was the second most
important consideration to make it “Born Electric” 3
and give the customer a true EV
experience instead of a compromised one. The first prototype, PT1, (shown in Figure 4) was
used primarily to establish an understanding of EV technologies and the integration issues such
as the battery location.
Figure 4. Joule PT1while testing
The battery compartment is seen under the floor between the front and rear wheels. This keeps
the vehicle centre-of-gravity low, enhancing vehicle handling and providing access to the
batteries for battery swapping. 4
The under-floor battery compartment is viewed from
3
Today this is a registered trademark of BMW.
4
Battery swapping was seen as a better alternative than “fast-charging” for quickly replenishing the vehicle’s
energy store. Tesla Motors later also later decided to follow this route (Capgemeni Consulting, 2014).

7. underneath in Figure 5 and forms a strong structural element providing significant vehicle
stiffness when the closure panels are fitted.
Without the need for a fuel tank and routing of an exhaust pipe, the Joule could have a totally
flat floor allowing great flexibility in seating layout and allowing the same platform to be used
in multiple future vehicle models.
Figure 5. Bottom View of the PEV Prototype Body Showing the Battery Compartment
The Joule battery needs to provide 70kW power at peak but due to its ~99% efficiency does not
produce much heat. However it still requires some ventilation, presenting an airflow challenge,
as shown in 6. The air is channelled from the vehicle front to between the two battery packs and
flows outwards through the batteries to be vented at the rear. The battery itself is mounted on
the closure panel (Figure 7) and is itself structurally stiff.
Figure 6. Air-flow Through the Battery Compartment

8. Figure 7. The Two Halves of a Joule Battery on the Battery Closure Panels
In summary, a custom mechanical architecture is clearly essential for an EV.
Vehicle Electrical Architecture
As vehicles have become more sophisticated, the percentage cost of the on-board electronics
has grown exponentially. Taking out the engine and replacing it with a computer-controlled
electric motor is a major inflection point, not merely an evolutionary change.
As described earlier, the traditional approach to vehicle development is largely bottom-up,
particularly for the electrical systems. The vehicle developer could select an “ABS system”, an
engine (complete with Engine control Unit and electronics), electric windows (with a
controller), an “alarm system” etc. These are standard offerings that are considered mature,
which are then integrated with each other. This integration often results in a mixed bag of
communication protocols, functional duplication and inefficient wiring design.
If one considers that an EV is actually and electric device at heart, and then applies top-down
functional analysis principles using available technologies, significant optimisation and
opportunity arises. A central controller, with distributed nodes to all ancillaries, could for
example allow the lights to flash when the charger is plugged in; a computer voice could
provide audible vehicle warnings through the sound system; the interior heater could be turned
on using your mobile phone; the vehicle could automatically be disabled if taken outside a
designated geographic area; and all of this can be configurable via software. These potential
benefits were recognised early in the Joule development process, giving rise to the philosophy
that “Joule is a computer on wheels”, much to the chagrin of the mechanical engineers.
The Joule developers were not the only ones to recognise this technology shift in cars, with
Negele reporting in 2006 that “to meet these challenges the BMW Group basically rethought
its development processes for electrics/electronics in order to introduce a more stringent
systems engineering approach and set up a change program with clear focus on the E/E system
as a whole. This signified an important turnaround from a “component-oriented” to a
“system-oriented” development process.” (Negele at al, 2006).
The electrical architecture therefore advocates a System Engineering approach in order to
successfully integrate the various major components and requires flexibility to access
off-the-shelf parts (with their diverse interfaces and protocols).

9. The Need for a Clean Sheet
It can be seen from the above that much like the mobile phone was a totally disruptive product
that did not simply replace the functionality of a landline telephone; an EV presents a totally
new paradigm of vehicle and requires a fresh approach to its development. If the novel features
could be provided in a desirable package, at an acceptable price ahead of the competitors, Joule
had a good chance of being truly disruptive and becoming a success.
The challenge would be to establish a development process that would elicit these benefits
whilst still building on the vast expertise and supplier base of the existing automotive industry.
Vehicle Development Process
We have seen already that the traditional automotive development approach is largely an
evolutionary one. The development process established for the Joule development, on the other
hand, was initially a top-down Systems Engineering approach. This was later merged with the
automotive one to form a hybrid process, as described below.
Traditional Automotive Development
What is not apparent from the automotive development process shown previously in Figure 3 is
the underlying component-focussed process shown in Figure 8. This parts-centred approach is
driven as a procurement and quality-management process, where even seemingly small
component cost savings are pursued vigorously to gain significant benefits from volume
purchase agreements. During the four phases the parts are evaluated, chosen, incorporated into
the vehicle design, and their production established.
Figure 8: The Parts-focussed View of the Typical Automotive Development Process

10. During the A-sample phase, various component candidates are evaluated for fulfilling a
particular function. This is typically where new part types, such as the latest braking systems
from competing suppliers, are evaluated and the most suitable one or two selected according to
the concept requirements of the next vehicle model. The selected parts may not be fully mature,
but by the B-sample phase several of these parts are tested on mule5
vehicles to confirm their
suitability and performance. In the C-sample phase the parts are integrated into what is
intended to be the “final design-intent” vehicle, and must be fully mature. Many samples of this
zero-excuse part are required to produce vehicles in low-volume (~100) that will be used for
Design Validation (or Engineering Qualification) and thus exposed to the accelerated life
testing and in-vehicle durability testing. The cost must be known accurately and the part
manufacturing must have been established.
In the final D-sample phase, the part is actually a production part made according to the final
manufacturing process, but perhaps still in pilot volumes. D-sample parts are used to
commission the vehicle assembly line and its related logistic processes. The vehicles built from
these parts are subjected to testing focussed on establishing the repeatability and quality of the
manufacturing and supply chain processes. Some engineering issues also emerge but changes
to part designs at this time are considered highly undesirable.
Joule’s Initial Development Approach
At the time the Joule development started, the company did not have much insight into the
automotive process described above. A tailored Systems Engineering process was developed
by the author, taking into account the risks and opportunities that were apparent at that time. As
various cost-reducing route options were evaluated and the organisation grew, the top-level
development process in Figure 9 was established.
Figure 9. Initial Top-level Development Process for the Joule6
5
A mule vehicle can be any vehicle to which the test part if fitted for evaluation under road or specific test
conditions.
6
The diagram has been updated to reflect the names of the prototypes and the terms “C-samples” and
“D-samples” (which were not known at the time) as points of reference for later discussion.

11. The major process inputs are listed on the left, leading into two main activities: a Technology
Development process for the in-house development of systems that are unique to EVs (and thus
present a higher technical risk); and a top-down Product Development Process that comprises
of several waterfall-type phases of increasing depth. When the own-developed EV
technologies became mature they would be transferred to the Product Development stream to
be incorporated in the mainstream vehicle design. The following prototype phases were
defined:
PT1 had various technical purposes but also needed to attract further funding. It comprised of
the technology platform that integrated the EV technology concepts (battery, drive system and
controls) and allowed the team to learn about them. It also was the opportunity to develop the
vehicle styling and character by making a full-scale model of the Joule, establishing a
conceptual technical and market baseline.
PT2 (Phase 0) followed, providing the first vehicle prototype that incorporated the unique
vehicle style into a functional body, interior and chassis using in-house EV technologies, all
integrated into one vehicle. The Vehicle Technical Specification (VTS) was quite extensive by
this time and from this point forward was linked to the User Requirement, which became more
mature as the marketing team introduced the vehicle concept to the market. A major purpose of
this phase was to establish the Functional Baseline of the vehicle, whilst establishing a robust
vehicle costing model to maintain alignment between cost and performance. Various
technology options were evaluated off-line in this and the next phase, through integration into
“mule” vehicles.
PEV (Phase 1) was envisaged to be one in which the overall technical maturity would grow
and the in-house technologies completed. The all-important “feel” of the vehicle would have to
be evaluated in market clinics with potential customers and media, requiring four of these
vehicles to be built. They would require “customer-ready” finishes and representative
performance so that the User Requirement and high-level Vehicle Technical Specification
could be validated. These prototypes are shown in Figure 2 and were the last Joules built.
P50k (Phase 2) was the industrialisation phase for the Joule. This was planned as a major
project over four years, in which the PEV low-volume concept would have to be engineered
into a production-ready, market and cost-competitive product. One final design iteration was
planned which would culminate in engineering qualification tests of around 70 vehicles in the
field undergoing various tests. The production data-pack and supply chain would also be
established in this time, as would the assembly plant and sales/support systems. The production
qualification would be a reduced set of tests, prior to ramping up to full-scale production.
Phases 3 and 4 would be production, supply, maintenance and ongoing improvements and
“face-lifts” through the vehicle’s life-cycle.
To execute Phase 2 would require the effort of a multi-national team of several hundred
engineers and tens of component and system suppliers. As these relationships were established
in Phase 1 and the detailed plans formulated, it was quickly apparent that the planned process
and its Systems-Engineering terminology was a barrier to the required collaborations. A new
process evolved, merging the automotive process with the original one.

12. Merging Two Process Views
One of the shortcomings of the standard automotive process was the limited connection
between the parts/system development and the vehicle development. Some of this activity
should be top-down, yet there is an element of independent parts/system development required
to address part-specific risks, complexity and life-cycle. The solution adopted by the company
was to allow semi-independent processes for parts and the vehicle, with only a loose linkage,
up to a specific convergence point. Figure 10 is modified version of Figure 9, showing the
component development stream and how this converges with the vehicle development to form
the Allocated Baseline of the vehicle. Modern engineering tools such as CAD, PLM, modelling
and simulation could be employed for interface and requirements management prior to the
convergence, with only limited physical integration and testing in a vehicle platform.
Figure 10. Convergence of New Technologies, Carry-over Parts and Vehicle Development
This principle led the integrated Development Process shown in Figure 11. This funnel-like
process provides a map of the relationships between vehicle development, system development,
component development and assembly plant development.
The top-down vehicle process is seen to start in the top-left while the parts process starts in the
bottom left. The parts are selected through the A-sample and B-sample phases previously
described, influenced by the early vehicle requirements. Unique EV-systems are also
developed and evaluated in a similar fashion, but with greater strategic direction from the
top-down vehicle process.

13. Confirm & Update
Concept
Freeze
CER PDR CDR
C-MRD
FDR
CBA D
D-MRD
Prod
Ramp
up
SOP SOP + 3
URS Confirm & Update
VTS Confirm & Update
Confirm & Update
Build and validate final design
parts
Integ & Test Systems
Make D-Parts
Confirm &
Update
Manufacture C-partsCTS
STS
C Vehicles
build
‘C’ Virtual Vehicle – Confirm & Update
Component Detail
‘B’ Virtual Vehicle
‘A’ Virtual
Vehicle
Pre Prod Cars
P1, P2 & P3
1st Car
Prodcution
Tooling
Freeze
Engineering Qualification
testing
Production
Qualification testing
Lab & mule
testing of parts
Assy plant design/build Commission plant
Complete
Vehicle
Systems&
Parts
Assembly
Plant
PTS
KEY to work streams:
URS – User Requirement Specification
VTS – Vehicle Technical Specification
STS – System Technical Specification
CTS – Component Technical
Specification
PTS – Assy Plant Technical
Specification
Figure 11. The Final Development Process for the Joule
The parts and system requirements and interfaces are integrated in the “A-virtual vehicle” and
“B-virtual vehicle” respectively to help confirm and update the User Requirement
Specification (URS) and establish the Vehicle Technical Specification (VTS). Some of these
virtual vehicles (like the PEV) may actually be built to help validate the requirements and
integration concepts.
The parts may undergo a lab or mule testing programmes and be integrated into systems,
independent of the vehicle development stream, up to the Concept Evaluation Review (CER)
convergence point, when the vehicle concept is frozen in the Allocated Baseline. After this the
“C-sample” phase starts and the vehicle and parts processes must remain firmly in sync with
each other and with the establishment of the procurement and assembly processes.
Up to the CER there is an iterative process to link the entire organisational strategy, not only
the vehicle design. The procurement of parts, their manufacture, the assembly plant, the market
strategy, budget and project plan, all need to align and end up manufacturing, selling and
supporting a vehicle which is a success in the market. This “Allocated Baseline” is thus very
comprehensive, aligning all these aspect and becoming the major document governing the
company activities going forward.
Table 2 shows the progressive nature of this baseline development. “Book 1” would be
completed by the start of the B-sample phase, whilst “Book 2” would be a more mature and
prescriptive version, available at the CER.

14. Table 2: Gradual Establishment of the Vehicle Baseline by the Convergence Point
Book 1 Book 2
Purchasing and Logistics
Strategy
A description of the strategy
outlining the procurement &
logistics concepts
Detailed plan to handle the
implementation of book 1
concepts, based in the envisaged
business framework
Aftersales Strategy A description of the plan and
policies relating to after-sales
products and components.
A mature after-sales strategy
reflecting changes made during
the book 1 and 2 phases.
Quality Strategy A description of the overall plan
relating to the company-wide
rollout of advanced product
quality management
A matured plan relating to
APQP and rollout with regards
to OE and its suppliers.
Budget A projection of the project cost
breakdown and financial
structure, from material to
assembly, sales and support.
An advanced model of the
project cost, with accurate
individual breakdowns per
operation.
Plant concepts A collection of individual design
concepts that contribute to the
production plant design
A collection of matured plant
concepts that contribute to the
production plant design
Plant technical Specs (PTS) An initial description of the
specifications required for the
whole assembly plant permanent
features.
A mature list of specifications
which can include modular
specs which change with the
vehicle model.
Vehicle concepts A summary of the engineering
concepts for the vehicle and
parts.
Concept definition complete and
feasible engineering concepts
validated for the whole vehicle.
Vehicle technical Specs
(VTS)
A set of technical vehicle design
specs. Incl. mass & power
budget, costed BOM, space
allocation & technical standards.
Any changes made post book 1
phase to the UR will be reflected
in this version of the VTS
Program Master Schedule
(PMS)
Compilation of individual
sub-projects work breakdown
structures for the project
duration
An updated version of the PMS
reflecting all changes during
book 1&2 activities.
User Requirements (UR) Collection of desired vehicle
properties & features (“Voice of
the Customer”).
UR also reflects technical
realities and cost compromises.
Conclusion
The development of an EV from a clean sheet presents a significant challenge, particularly to
an engineering team that has no automotive development experience. It does however also
present a great opportunity - there are several unique EV benefits that can only be achieved
through a fresh start of a vehicle’s design without the encumbrance of legacy designs.
A fresh start also benefits more from a Systems Engineering approach, particularly when the
legacy approach is to make only incremental improvements upon a prior product. The fresh
approach provides an opportunity to apply Systems Engineering best practices in a tailored
top-down process. Although many benefits were realised in this approach, it made it difficult to
profit from the wealth of knowledge that is already available and the savings potential of
incorporating off-the-shelf parts. A hybrid development process was therefore developed that
merged the traditional automotive and Systems Engineering approaches.

15. The Joule project was halted during the “convergence point” for funding reasons, and never
continued into the “C-sample” phase, preventing a test of the Joule Development Process. Up
to that point the project was technically very successful, having achieved road-going
prototypes within in a record time and low budget. The development process had passed the
scrutiny of international partners and the Allocated Baseline was clearly established. It is
hoped that the reader may have learned some lessons of their own in reading this paper, that
may be applied to the benefit other complex product development projects.
References
Oosthuizen, H. 2011. “Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained.” Car Magazine, April 2011.
Loureiro, G. Leaney, P.G. Hodgson, M. 1999. “A Systems Engineering Framework for
Integrated Automotive Development.” INCOSE International Symposium, June 1999.
doi 10.1002/j.2334-5837.1999.tb00264.x
Magna Steyr. 2015. “Magna Steyr Product Development Process.”
https://www.ecs.steyr.com/Product-Development-Process.1329.0.html?&L=1
Negele, H. Schmidt, R. Finkel, S. Wenzel, S. 2006. “Lessons Learned from Synchronizing
Complex Systems Development within Automotive Industry.” INCOSE International
Symposium, July 2006. doi 10.1002/j.2334-5837.2006.tb02770.x
Swart, G.P. 2015. “Innovation lessons learned from the Joule EV Development.” Proceedings
of IAMOT 2015 Conference, P235,
http://www.iamot2015.com/2015proceedings/documents/P235.pdf
Capgemeni Consulting. 2014. “Tesla Motors: A Silicon Valley Version of the Automotive
Business Model.”
http://www.slideshare.net/capgemini/tesla-motors-a-silicon-valley-version-of-the-automotive-bu
siness-model?qid=86850eda-d7ac-4cfd-8cd7-13241dcc8cc9&v=default&b=&from_search=12
Biography
Gerhard Swart is an experienced Systems Engineer that played a technical
leadership role in various projects such as the Rooivalk Attack Helicopter,
Hong Kong International Airport and the Southern African Large Telescope.
In 2005 he was one of the founders and CTO of Optimal Energy. Today
Gerhard is a Director of Alphadot (Pty) Ltd, which consults to government,
industry and academia in Innovation, Product Development and Systems
Engineering. He is also co-founder and CTO of BattCo Energy Storage
Systems, who are commercialising battery systems for the African market.
He is a registered Professional Engineer, member of INCOSE and senior member of SAIEE.
Acknowledgements
The development of the Joule was an incredible journey by a team of passionate people. The
dream was a lot bigger than one organisation and inspired many to hope against all odds, that
they would make a significant impact on South Africa’s industry landscape whilst creating
thousands of manufacturing jobs. Thank you to the team for bringing it so far. Thank you also
to my saviour Jesus Christ, whose strength and encouragement helped me prosper through the
journey.