CPET 575 Management of Technology Technological Innovationlin/CPET575_MangOfTech/2015Fall/1-Lectures/CA… · CPET 575 Management of Technology Technological Innovation Case I-1 Elio

1

1

CPET 575 Management of Technology

Technological Innovation

Case I-1 Elio Engineering, IncLecture Note & Summary

by

Professor Paul I-Hai Lin

Pages 13-31 of Text Book:

Robert A. Burgelman, Clayton M. Christensen, and Steven C. Wheelwright, Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation, 5th edition, McGraw-Hill, 2009.

Case I-1 Elio Engineering Inc.

2

Elio Engineering, Inc – Case Study

1This case discusses the origin and strategic options

facing an innovative start-up in automotive seat design.

With the market dominated by a few very large supplier

serving the “Big Three” U.S. automakers, Elio

Engineering faces several challenges as it seeks to

introduce its new seating technology to the market. The

case can serve as a vehicle to discuss important themes

such as technology strategy and business strategy,

invention and innovation, bring technology to market and

profiting from innovation.


1 Stanford Graduate School of Business - No. SM-109TN, by Professor Robert A.

Burgelman and Philp Meza, Date 09/24/2003

2

3

Outline

Origin of Elio Engineering

Seat Mechanism Technologies

Industry and Regulatory Environment

Technological Barriers and Risks

Capabilities Requirements for Players in Automotive

Seats and Comparative Company Profiles

Decision Time


4

Elio ABET Seat Technology Analysis



• Customer, Potential Market Size, Competitors, Barriers to Entry

• Role of Upstream or Downstream Products or Firms, Regulatory

Issues

Technological Barriers and Risks

• Bottlenecks to Commercializing the Technology

• Manufacturing Issues

• Relevant Supporting Technologies for Elio’s ABTE Seat

Mechanism

Capabilities Requirements for Players in Automotive

Seats and Comparative Company Profile

Decision Making


3

5


Paul Elio

Technical Capabilities

• JCI Benchmarking

Department

• JCI Structural Design and

Analysis Department

1996 -1998

• A patent: revolutionary bike

design

• Failed venture

Feb. 1998

• A new seat design “No

Compromise”

Feb. 1999

Hari Saknkara

Technical Capabilities: 1988 –

1997, JCI’s Structural Design

& Analysis Department

MBA training

1998 Summer Intern at Booz

Allen Hamilton, a management

consulting firm


6


1998

First venture meeting: Paul & Hari, at Venice, CA

Agenda• ABTS (All-Belts-To-Seat)

• Announcement & comments

A cost effective new seat design - a special class of ABTS

• Features

Utilizing new technology

Resulting structure: Low cost, Light weight, Strong

• Potential: penetration of all segments of auto market


4

7


1998 - Follow up activities Partnership arrangement

New product design• Funding: further R&D, computer & simulation software

• Product Design Methodology: Build-and-Test approach

• Intermediate Outcomes: Prototypes, simulation results

First business adventure• Show the concept (seat invention) to automotive seat

industry

• Fair value of the new design & concept

• No patent protection

Second try• Bostrom Seating, a seat supplier for the heavy truck and

bus industry

• Concluded an option agreement to prototype and test their NC seat


8


Nov. 1998: New product development at BostromSeating• The Elio team – based at Bostrom Seating

• Packaging & developing the seat

• Received a letter of intent with respect to licensing agreement (would follow successful prototype testing)

• Stipulated testing requirements (in the option agreement)

130 percent of FMVSS loads (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard)

Early 1999• Support 3 full-time engineers – an advance against

future royalties

• Prototype assistance from Bostrom Seating

Feb 1999 • Prototype tests – promising

• OEM customer’s response – favorable

• A licensing deal - based on the prototype performanceCase I-1 Elio Engineering Inc.

5

9

Origin of Elio Engineering March 1999

• Bostrom Seating plan to unveil the NC seat at the March 1999 Trade Show at Louisville, KY

• Elio team – run into a few design-engineering challenges

• Bostrom plan for bring new product to the market

Time: Intended to ramp up production very soon

U.S. Market• Market segment: U.S. truck market

• Market size: 500,000 units

• Market share: 50 percent

• Elio royalties: 2 to 5 percent on sales in the truck industry

European Market (no presence), Asian Market?

Paul Elio’s Vision• Bring the seat to the entire automotive industry

• Potentially saving millions of lives around the world

• If Bostrom Seating would be the right partner?


10

Seat Mechanism Technologies Existing Seat Technologies

• Typical conventional front seat (~$500 to OEM)

• A complete seat system – two front and one back row (~$2,500 to OEM)

• ABTS seat – cost?

Conventional Car Front Seat Technology• Seat Mechanism (~60 percent of total cost)

Exhibit 1 Seat Mechanism: Seat Track (Adjuster), Seat Structure (recliner)

Manual or electric motor adjustment control

Seat belt (shoulder belt)

• Exhibit 2 Seat System: Seat structure, track, suspension, trim, and foam

• No major breakthroughs; Incremental innovations

• NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) Safety standard - crash loads specification

• Major benefits: inexpensive components and materials, lightweight, matured technology, easy to manufacture and assembly


6

11


All-Belt-to-Seat (ABTS) Seat Mechanisms

ABTS development attempts

• Major industry players during 1984 -1999: Johnson

Controls, Lear, and Magna

• Exhibit 3: ABTS Seat Frame and ABTS Seat System

ABTS advantages over conventional seats

• Ease of use

• Higher comfort level

• More attractive appearance

• Better maneuverability

• Potential safer (seat belt hugs the occupant in the event of

rear collision)

Current ABTS technology

• Use the same “recliner” & “track” concepts

• Need a must stronger seat structure to meet safety standardCase I-1 Elio Engineering Inc.

12


All-Belt-to-Seat (ABTS) Seat

Mechanisms

ABTS development attempts

• Major industry players during

1984 -1999: Johnson Controls,

Lear, and Magna

• Exhibit 3: ABTS Seat Frame

and ABTS Seat System


• ABTS advantages over

conventional seats• Ease of use

• Higher comfort level

• More attractive

appearance

• Better maneuverability

• Potential safer (seat

belt hugs the occupant

in the event of rear

collision)

7

13


Current ABTS technology

• Use the same “recliner” & “track” concepts

• Need a much stronger seat structure to meet safety

standard

• Weight twice as heavy as a conventional seat

• Cost:

Average $750 to OEM

About 1.5 times higher


14


Elio Engineering ABTS Technology

A new state-or-art technology

• Broadly patented mechanism based on “cable” and “drum”

elements as opposed to gears

• Major technological breakthrough

A new load-leveling recliner mechanism with a high

strength-to-weight ratio to ensure that the seat does not

fracture or buckle at the failure level

When the force diminished, the seat structure is still fully

functional

• Key benefits:

Stronger, Lighter, and Cheaper

Does not permit catastrophic failure


8

15


Elio Engineering ABTS Technology

Other Innovative design features & improvements

• Use fewer and lighter parts (single-sided recliner): as light

as a conventional seat

• Improved comfort and ease of use

Infinitely adjustable both for manual and electric seats

Minimizing buzz, squeak, and rattle problems

• Seat-belt retractor (the component containing the belt pool)

Located at the bottom of the back frame

Reduce load-carrying requirements of the back frame by

20%

Ease of Manufacturing

• Easy to assemble

• Does not require expensive high-tolerance parts Case I-1 Elio Engineering Inc.

16

Industry and Regulatory Environment: Customer

Ultimate user of the technology – buyers of a new (or

used) car

Decision maker -OEM customers of seat system

suppliers, need to fit

• The body of a particular car model

• Part of the “total interior design”: door panel, instrument

panel, console, and headliner

The OEM provides the suppliers with

• Specifications – type, structure size, and styling

• Other spec. factors: demographic parameters, needs, and/or

lifestyles for matching car’s interior


9

17


The OEM market

• Highly concentrated, and buyer power is enormous

• Able squeeze the operating margins of major U.S. seat

system suppliers (ten multibillion dollar companies) down

to 2 to 5 percent

• Exhibit 4 – U.S. 1998 Light Vehicle Market Share Total U.S.

sales: ~ 15 million units

• Big three U.S. automakers: Ford (25%), GM (29.1%), and

Daimler Chrysler (16.2%)

• Prefer multiple sources of seat technologies and systems

• Often dictate seat technology, components, or systems

OEM In-house seat system

• Design & manufacturing some high-end seats

Supplier selection criteria • Safety, cost, reliability, comfort and ease of use


18


Elio Engineering’s Concerns

• Recognize unfavorable bargaining position for seat supplier

• Important consideration - not to release exact cost info to

OEMs

• Can be easily be reversed engineered


10

19


Potential Market Size for Elio ABTS Seat Technology

Current ABTS seats market

• Limited only to high-end market segments of the passenger

car market (high cost)

• Luxury segment brands – unit sales of 2.16 million in 1997;

15% of total U.S. light vehicle market

• OEMs awareness of ABTS’s benefits and strong latent

demand for the technology; improving people’s safety

• Exhibit 7 European 1997 Market Share in Automotive Seats

– Total European Revenues: ~$7.5 billions: Johnson

Controls 27.3%, Lear Corp & Keiper 24.6%

• Exhibit 8 U.S. Seat Systems: 1997 Market Share Total

Revenue: ~$8.2 Billion: Johnson Controls 31%, Lear Corp

28%, Magna 10%


20


Potential Market Size for Elio ABTS Seat Technology

Future ABTS seats market • Exhibit 6 Global 1997 Vehicle Unit Sales by Region

• Annual market potential of up to 17 million units in North America

• World-wide up to 53 million units

Other Potential Markets - Elio’s ABET technology• Heavy truck

• Aircraft

• Passenger train


11

21

Exhibit 5 Benefits of Adopting NC Seat

Benefits Rationale Impli-cation

OEMs share cost benefits

Reduced ABTS weight Cost

Reduced R&D expense

NC seat is scalable and portable across multiple platforms

Cost

Reduced inventory carrying costs

Fewer parts – less variability and less buffer stock to protect against stockout

Cost

Enhanced market position by being lower cost producer

Improved business capture (including available conventional seat market in N.A. and Europe and new market in Asia, Latin America, and South Europe); better margins

Cost/

revenue


22

Exhibit 5 Benefits of Adopting NC Seat (cont.)

Benefits Rationale Impli-cation

Deceased product liability issues

No catastrophic modes of failure; better energy management; ABTS seat advantages in rear impact

Cost

Decreased warranty issues

Fewer welds, fewer parts, and fewer fatigue problems

Cost

Increases leverage with OEMs

Sustainable competitive advantage with NC seat system – patent protection; OEMs have to come to supplier for NC seat

Revenue

Fewer production issues

Lower tolerance requirements; thinner gauge steel than most seats

Cost

Premium pricing

Innovative design features – zero check (no looseness in the system), continuously variable and continuously engaged track and recliner mechanisms; high strength characteristics; enhanced safety

Revenue


12

23

Competitor Analysis Highly concentrated North America automotive seating

markets

General Assessment Info

• Two 1st-tier players

Johnson Controls Inc. (JCI) & Lear Corp split 60% of

market, Fortune 500 companies, also had a dominant share

worldwide

• No. 3 player – Manga

10% share in U.S.

• Many potential competitors (not cost effective solutions)

Already had an ABTS seat in product portfolio or were

currently working on the technology

Many small seat component suppliers were also designing

or manufacturing ABTS seat mechanisms

• Elio Engineering Competitive Advantage: cost & functional, for

some time to come Case I-1 Elio Engineering Inc.

24

Competitor Analysis

Both Johnson Controls Inc. (JCI) & Lear Corp

• Significant economies of scales in manufacturing and

distribution

• Global presence

• Fairly strong relationships with OEMs

• Fast and easy access to OEMs for new products

Lear Corp – competitive advantages

• Outsource more of the design and manufacturing work

• Acts as a seat “system integrator”

• Strong supplier network – critical success factors

Other small suppliers

• Focus on niche markets for seats and/or specialize in

certain seat components


13

25

Competitor Analysis

JCL (reputation and capabilities) – competitive advantages• Strong at effectively integrating strategic acquisitions into

organizational structure

• Heavily vertically integrated

• Design and manufacturing expertise

• Able to handle complex manufacturing challenges on a large scale

• JIT (Just-in-time) capabilities – supplier choice for Japanese automakers

• Excellent seat system and total car interior engineering capabilities

• Strong expertise in Concurrent engineering and software tools

• Ability to manage the seat system development form concept to production for OEM


26

Competitor Analysis

Summary

• Currently, no clearly superior ABTS technology on the

market

• JCI and Lear had the advantage of leveraging their existing

relationships and distribution networks for their ABTS

products


14

27

Exhibit 9 Company Profiles

For three companies: Johnson Controls, Inc., Lear

Corporation, and Magna International

Description of the Company

Major Customers and Competitions

Financials:

• Annual Income Statement ($millions)

• Annual Balance Sheet


28

Exhibit 9 Company Profiles (cont.)

Financials:

• Annual Income Statement ($millions)

Total sales

Total expenses:

• Cost of goods sold

• SG&A (Selling, General & Administrative) expense

• Unusual income/expenses

Pre-tax income

Income after tax

Net income (excluding E&D – exploration &

development)

Annual Balance Sheet


15

29


Financials:


Assets

• Cash & equivalents

• Account receivable

• Inventory

• Prepayments & advances

• Other current assets

Total current assets

• Long-term investments

• Property plant and

equipment, other

• Property plant and

equipment, net

• Goodwill/intangibles

• Other long-term assets

Total assets

Liabilities

• Account payable

• Short-term debt

• Other current liabilities

Total current liabilities

• Long-term debt

Total long-term debt

• Other long-term liabilities

Total liabilities


30


Financials (continue):


Stockholder’s equity

• Preferred stock

• Common stock

• Additional paid in capital

• Retained earnings

• Other equity

Total shareholders’ equity

Total liabilities and

shareholders’ equity

Share outstanding


16

31

Industry and Regulatory Environment:

Barriers to Entry (BTE) Classification of Incumbents: Tier-one, tier-two, and tier- three

suppliers

As a Tier-one Supplier

• Huge scale advantages in “manufacturing and distribution”

• At the far end of learning curve in terms of

Design, development, and manufacturing processes

• For standard product and incremental innovations

Lower cost position and shorter time to market

• Strong ties to OEMS – position advantage

Almost impossible to be replaced

Emphasize reliability and standard processes


32


Barriers to Entry (BTE) As a Tier-two Supplier

• Possible with innovative technologies to be rewarded

through new contracts directly with an OEM

• Extreme difficulties in

Manufacturing & distribution

• BTE is lower in

Design & development part of the value chain

• An example:

Meritor Automotive Inc’s Seat Adjusting System

Developed an ABTS seat mechanism, one of the lightest

and most easily packaged

Selected by GM, in 1998, to supply the OEM with 100

percent of power and manual seat adjusters for new GM

truck program


17

33


Barriers to Entry (BTE) As a Tier-three Supplier or Below

• Faced fairly low BTE at the tier-three supplier level or

below

• Hundreds of small to medium component suppliers –

possessed no significant sustainable competitive

advantage


34


Barriers to Entry (BTE)

At least two major option (due to board patent

protection)

1. Enter the market as a tier-three or tier-two supplier of seat

mechanisms or seat structures (outsource manufacturing

to avoid major capital investment)

• Advantages:

Could supply its technology to all tier-one suppliers

Greater control over its core ABTS technology

• Disadvantages:

Cannot build it’s integrating capabilities

Likely to receive a relative small piece of final product’s

total value

Significantly increased the technological and market risk

– due to lacking manufacturing and marketing expertise


18

35


Barriers to Entry (BTE)

At least two major option (due to board patent

protection)

2. Partner with one of the tier-one or tier-two suppliers, or

with an OEM and develop and market the seat in a joint

venture, or through a licensing agreement

• Advantages

Receiving substantial resources

Significantly reduce technological and market risks

• Disadvantages

An exclusive partnership with a tier-one or OEM would

limit the size of total market

Less control over its core ABTS technology and

depending on its bargaining position, with a potentially

lower margin


36

Industry and Regulatory Environment Role of Upstream or Downstream Products or Firms

• A small portion of tier-one supplier with direct access to the

OEMs

• Many tier-two and tier-three suppliers of components and

raw materials, with very limited market power

• Exceptions

OEMs insist that tier-one suppliers source from certain

tier-two suppliers to ensure access to a particular

component or technology

Regulatory Issues

• Seat suppliers had to fulfill strict federal safety standards

set by NHTSA and codifies in the Federal Motor vehicle

Safety Standards (FMVSS)

• Demonstrate product safety


19

37

Technological Barriers and Risks Bottlenecks to Commercializing the Technology

• Federal safety requirement

Major structure test

• Material science

Raw materials – insufficient knowledge

Untested performance under extreme temperature

condition

• Large capital requirements (if manufacture in-house)

• Lack of competencies in manufacturing and distribution

• Lack of access to OEMs

• Other OEM Challenges

Stringent seat design requirements

Certification requirements and supplier preferences

Unknown end-user about preference of seat style and

ABTS seats


38

Technological Barriers and RisksManufacturing Issues

Manufacturing complexity & cost of a car seat

• Number of parts/Tolerance requirements/Strength of the

material used

Elio’s ABTS Technology

• Fewer parts/ Lower tolerance requirements/Lower strength

materials

Major manufacturing issues

• Not its core competence

• Need large capital, building a new plant

• Common processes: stamping, pressing, welding, casting,

and injection molding

• Implementation of a JIT delivery system

• Concurrent engineering – additional challenge Case I-1 Elio Engineering Inc.

20

39

Technological Barriers and RisksRelevant Supporting Technologies for Elio’s ABTS Seat

Mechanism

Concurrent engineering (supporting technology)

• Allow the development team to understand technologies

and products from a “manufacturability” standpoint during

the early design stage, and

• Communicate product info to Design, Manufacturing,

Marketing, and Management

• Achieve more robust designs, reduce development cost,

facilitate implementation readiness, and decrease time-to-

market

• Need to access to and skills in integrated CAD, CAM, and

CAE software


40

Technological Barriers and RisksRelevant Supporting Technologies for Elio’s ABTS Seat

Mechanism

Material science

• Material are often found by trial and error

• It can be outsourced to material science specialists


21

41

Capabilities Requirements

A variety of capabilities to compete successfully

Tier-one requirements

• Strong relationships with OEMs

• A large global presence and scale

• Ability to manage the seat system development from

concept to production for OEMs

• Strong supplier network

• Fast-time-to market, Low cost, High quality Position

(Engineering capabilities)

Concurrent engineering

In-house design and interior system

• State-of-art manufacturing technology

• JIT capabilities

• Vertical integration


42

Exhibit 10 Comparative Capabilities Profile of

Selected Players (Scale: Strong, Adequate, Weak, None)

OEM Relationships

Global Scale

Tier-Two Relationships

Total Program Management

Acquisition Capabilities

Vertical Integration

Just-in Time

Purchasing

Manufacturing Technology

In-House Design

System Level Testing

Comfort Engineering

CAD/CAM/CAE

Benchmarking

Research & Development

Product Development

Process

Interior Systems Capabilities

Financial Strength


22

43

Decision Time

Is in Feb. 1999, four months past

The NC design had developed substantially

The Bostrom alliance agreement for the truck market

had been concluded.

The questions about Elio’s strategy for entery into

automotive still remained. Paul & hari realized that they

needed answers to these questions in the coming days.

Should Elio joint venture with Bostrom?

Should it partner with a tier-one or tier two automotive

supplier?

Was Elio’s technology strategy aligned with the

requirements for a successful entry into the automotive

market? Case I-1 Elio Engineering Inc.

44

Conclusion


Documents

CPET 575 Management of Technology Technological Innovationlin/CPET575_MangOfTech/2015Fall/1-Lectures/CA… · CPET 575 Management of Technology Technological Innovation Case I-1 Elio