It’s still in the very early stage of research:
Please contact Higashi before your citation
1
-Establishing new vehicle architecture and organizational change in OEMs
Hidetada HIGASHI
Associate Professor, Dept. of Business Administration
Yamanashi Gakuin University, JAPAN hidetada.higashi@gmail.com
PVMI Research Updates: Hideada HIGASHI 2-Dec-13

2
PVMI Research Updates: Hideada HIGASHI 2-Dec-13

3
´   New approach on Product Development Process:
´   “MQB,” “CMF,” “Common Architecture,” “TNGA,” etc…
´   Case of Mazda: Engineering Planning Team
´   How did Mazda establish the “Common Architecture?”
´   And How does Mazda apply “Common Architecture” into vehicles?
´   Drivers of changing weight of Product Managers
´   Future Research Agenda
´   In-Depth research with Mazda
´   Grasping diversity among OEMs…
PVMI Research Updates: Hideada HIGASHI 2-Dec-13

4
´   Some of Major OEMs introduced the new approach of NPD process in this few years,
´   Like MQB, CMF, Common Architecture, TNGA, EMP2 and so on
´   These approach shares the concept of “Standardization” of components
´   Some of OEMs apply “Mix and match” approach for derivatives
´   MQB, CMF, EMP2 Emphasizes the “mix and match” approach
´   MQB, CMF, EMP2, and TNGA emphasizes the standardization of components
´   “ex ante” component sharing
PVMI Research Updates: Hideada HIGASHI 2-Dec-13

5
´   VW’s MQB and Mazda’s Common Architecture share the concepts that “Engineering from Brand Identity”
´   Both of the OEMs set the concept of “Ideal state of the vehicle developed by us”
´   VW develops “Modules” compiling the “Vehicle Architecture” and
“Design Rules” of VW.
´   Modules are assumed that applied multi project
´   Project is not arrowed to change the design of “Modules” without permission of Module Manager.
´   Hypothesis: Do these new approaches of NPD at OEMs Reduce the Power and Influence of Product Managers?
PVMI Research Updates: Hideada HIGASHI 2-Dec-13

6
´   Mazda develops a whole product line under the guidance of
“Common Architecture”
´   In other words, “Mazda’s all products must share one ideal goal and process of NPD”
´   This doesn’t mean component carry over.
´   Mazda prioritize the shared concept than shared component.
´   Example of SKYACTIV Engine
´   All gasoline engine lines share combustion pattern inside the chamber
´   Components are not intentionally shared
´   “Modular Engines” don’t share their combustion pattern
´   This “Rule” enables Mazda to reduce the cost of calibration
Hidetada HIGASHI
2 December
2013

7
´   Mazda emphasizes “Zoom-zoom” as its brand philosophy
´   Its product line shares one “Common Architecture” based on brand identity
´   This enables the reduction of “project based integration” with well prepared engineering practice
´   Zoom-zoom > Common Architecture > Each Vehicle
´   Tuning for specific vehicle becomes less, since the “Taste of the car” is similar.
´   Mazda’s have two mechanism works well with this concept
´   highly flexible production system enables optimized design
´   “Engineering Planning Team” sets this “Common Architecture”
Hidetada HIGASHI
2 December
2013

8
´   Engineering Planning Team establishes the architecture of whole vehicle line-up.
´   All the models launched after 2011 shares “Common Architecture”
´   Engineering Planning Team took major role as architect.
´   Task of Engineering Planning Team
´   Setting Architecture of vehicle in terms of packaging
´   Generating “Precondition” for Component Engineers
´   Regarding Brand, Exterior design, Technological resources…
´   “Feasible Target” and “Reason of the shape”
PVMI Research Updates: Hideada HIGASHI 2-Dec-13

9
´   Conceptually simplified model…
Attribute 1
Task of Component
Engineer
Technological Break Through by Component Engineers
Target for Component Engineer
Setting Feasible
Target by Engineering
Planning Team
Planning
Task of EPT
Engineering
(Breakthrough)
Indifference Curve of
Customer Preference
Technological
Frontier of Mazda
PVMI Research Updates: Hideada HIGASHI
Attribute 2

10
´   From strict point of view, almost all of components and functionalities of the car interdepends each other.
´   Then, Engineers need to “Simplify” the extremely complex problem.
´   Engineering Planning Team “Shakes” the parameters to set the
“precondition” to simplify the interdependences.
´   “Shake” means that determine the parameters to be fixed to match technological solution and customer benefit.
´   Detailed parameters are set by component engineers.
´   In other word, EPT “hides” the interdependence for component engineers.
´   Component engineers can concentrate with their own business, achieving breakthrough .
´   Less coordination occurs during the period of vehicle engineering
PVMI Research Updates: Hideada HIGASHI 2-Dec-13

11
´   EPT doesn’t have official power to command component engineers.
´   EPT belongs to Product Planning dev.
´   Component engineers belong to R&D dev.
´   How do EPT realize the architecture?
´   EPT supports the decision making of Executives.
´   EPT translates corporate strategies into engineering precondition to component engineers.
´   EPT generates “Convincible reason” to adapt the architecture.
´   So called “Bi-dan （美談） ” in Japanese
´   “Noble” story to convince executives and engineers
PVMI Research Updates: Hideada HIGASHI 2-Dec-13

12
（美談）
Brand Identity
Market Strategy
Customer Preference
Necessity
Feasibility
Resources
Technological Frontier
´   Necessity and feasibility constraints each other.
´   EPT generates “Story” to cover “Passive decisions”
´   In other word, EPT controls this relationship from both sides to generate “Bi-Dan”
PVMI Research Updates: Hideada HIGASHI 2-Dec-13

13
´   Mazda’s Product Managers works with many preconditions set by
Engineering Planning Team with executives before kick-off.
´   They have limited influence against Vehicle Concept, Component
Layout, and so on.
´   In past, PMs works with EPT to generate preconditions for their own vehicle.
´   This shows that Mazda’s Product Manager is NO LONGER SO
HEAVY as Clark&Fujimoto(1991) pointed out.
´   Clark&Fujimoto(1991) stated that Many of Japanese OEMs applies
HWPM type organization.
´   Like Hirai (Mazda Miata), Suzuki (Lexus LS), Sakurai (Nissan Skyline)
´   Is this the time to reduce the weight of Product Managers?
PVMI Research Updates: Hideada HIGASHI 2-Dec-13

14
´   Complexity of the Product
´   PM can’t deal with all the problems
´   Brand Identity
´   Brand Identity becomes the constraint for PMs in terms of vehicle concept
´   “Modularization” of the cars (like VW-MQB, Ren-Nis-CMF)
´   PMs can’t change the design of Modules without Permission
´   Existence of “Architect” inside the company (like Mazda)
´   EPT sets the “precondition” which covered whole vehicle lineup and it makes PM’s discretion limited especially in terms of planning.
PVMI Research Updates: Hideada HIGASHI 2-Dec-13

15
´   Theoretical Background
´   Creating solid framework
´   In depth case study at Mazda
´   Monthly research meeting (from Nov. 2012)
´   Participant observation in Engineering Planning Team (in 2014)
´   Interview to Executives, Engineers, Product Managers, etc…(in a few months)
´   To grasp the “change of weight” of Product Managers in Mazda
´   Gathering cases of other OEMs
´   Is there any OEM which has EPT-like team or division?
´   Detailed research of vehicle architecture issues and organization issues in
OEMs
PVMI Research Updates: Hideada HIGASHI 2-Dec-13

16
´   Reference
´   Clark&Fujimoto(1991)”Product Development Performance”
´   Mokudai&Iwaki(2013)”Seeking New approach of NPD in Auto OEMs”(in
Japanese)
´   Thanks to…
´   Prof. Kentaro NOBEOKA (Hitotsubashi University)
´   He connected EPT and us
´   Mazda Engineering Planning Team
´   Tomohiro HORI (General Manager) and his team members
´   Co-researcher
´   Mitsuhiro FUKUZAWA (Seikei University)
´   Naoki SENDA (Yamanashi Gakuin University)
´   Masashi KUROSAWA (Yamanashi Gakuin University)
PVMI Research Updates: Hideada HIGASHI 2-Dec-13