Search in book...
Toggle Font Controls
Create new playlist

Name your new playlist

Playlist description (optional)
Sign In

Email address

Password

Forgot Password?

or

Continue with Facebook

Continue with Google
Sign Up

Full Name

Email address

Confirm Email Address

Password

or

Continue with Facebook

Continue with Google

12.7 Summary

The purpose of this chapter is to apply creativity to generating a variety of concepts to choose from. Using both structured and unstructured creativity, we have worked to build out a number of concepts. This was based on two key ideas: More concepts will spur ideas for yet more concepts, and choosing among many concepts is more likely to yield a successful architecture than building out only one concept.

Figure 12.10 shows the number of concepts ballooning and then down-selected to a small number for more detailed trades. Specifically,

Two cones intersect in the center of the diagram with a large, flat oval — Figure 12.10 By expanding concepts and recombining concept fragments, we balloon the number of concepts under consideration. Subsequently, we use screening criteria to reduce these to a small number for further design.

Figure 12.10 Full Alternative Text

1 is the solution-neutral function.
N is the development of the concepts (Step 1).
(3 to 4)N is the expanding of each of the N concepts to reveal 3 to 4 internal functions, and the development of concept fragments for these (Step 2).
(3 to 4)N! is the combining to get all of the possible combinations of the fragment (Step 3).
10 to 20 is the more qualitative down-selection (part of Step 4).
5 to 7 is a quantitative down-selection (part of Step 4).
2 to 3 is the final outcome of the concept development stage (part of Step 4).

With a view to building a more complete picture of the architecture, we will now move from concept to architecture in the remainder of the text. The primary role of the architect in this last phase is to manage the investment in complexity, so we proceed in the next chapter to define complexity. As we’ve seen here, decomposition of the solution is central to the concept and the architecture, so in the next chapter we will use decomposition as a tool to manage complexity.

Box 12.2 Case Study: Architectural Competition

Early Architectural Competition in the Automotive Industry

Architectural competition [16] refers to differentiating a product from others in the market based on product architecture. In the early years of the automotive industry, three different concepts (electric, steam, and internal combustion) competed to dominate the market. At this early stage, automakers (large and small) innovated around the basic structure of a car, but with significantly different concepts. The market exhibited a time of architectural competition where a variety of powertrain elements were linked in various ways to enable the function of propelling the car.

Customers during the early 1900s had to decide which car architecture best met their mobility needs. For example, electric cars were marketed to female drivers for their ease of use and minimal maintenance, whereas internal combustion engine cars (ICEs), and steam cars were attractive to male drivers seeking power and speed. The advertisement in Figure 12.11 is evidence of architectural competition in the early automotive market.

Figure 12.11 Early vehicle advertising for an electric car [17].

(Source: Baker Electrics)

The electric car advertisement on the left presents a car fit for aristocrats, claiming that electric range is no longer an issue and showing a female driver at the wheel in the countryside. The advertisement on the right, dating from 1904, is more technical in nature, boasting 100 miles on one filling of the tanks—that is, both the fuel tank and the water tank in the steam car.

The two vehicles support similar specific functionality at an aggregate system level—namely, driving. However, they exhibit very different vehicle architectures. The mapping of functions and components for the steam powertrain architecture had several decades of evolutionary development from steam engine locomotives, which then translated into a new product system in cars. The electric car featured some components similar to those of the steam car, along with new components configured differently in both form and function.

What factors triggered architectural competition and dominance in the past? During the early modern automotive time period (1885 to 1915), steam was clearly the dominant architecture, with its origins dating back to the late 1780s. The shift toward architectural dominance was triggered primarily by a series of technological breakthroughs that sought to improve one of the main weaknesses of steam power: its dependence on the availability of water. These technological breakthroughs included the internal combustion engine and the electric motor, both of which resolved the water availability issue of steam power. These two technologies were initially focused on solutions for the rail and electric power generation markets before they entered into the nascent automotive industry.

As competition grew among steam, electric, and internal combustion engine cars, price and quality advantages became more acute. Steam cars were more expensive, but they offered rapid acceleration, reaching 0 to 65 km/h (0 to 40 mi/h) in less than 10 seconds. The highest power and torque in a steam engine occur when the vehicle starts from rest. However, early steam models could not go more than 2 miles without replenishing their water tank, it and took more than 20 minutes for the boiler to build up enough pressure to drive.

The early electric car had a price comparable to that of a steam car and required an electric power source, something found mostly in major cities at the time. It was limited in range to less than 64 km (40 mi) per charge and limited in speed to 32 km/h (20 mi/h). This was because of the low energy density of early lead acid batteries, at roughly 15 to 20 Wh/kg (watt-hours per kilogram), compared to the 12,200 Wh/kg contained in gasoline fuel. However, the key advantage of the early electric car was its simplicity of operation, with no complicated shifting mechanisms, and essentially no maintenance or uncomfortable emissions.

Early performance of the ICE car was on par with electric cars but inferior to that of steam cars. Steam proponents would often refer to the “internal explosion engine” to imply that the ICE car was less safe than the proven steam car. Although an ICE car could be started in less than a couple of minutes, many motorists sustained injuries in starting the vehicle with the external hand crank—a genuine safety issue.

Dominance of ICE Architectures

Figure 12.12 shows architecture performance for automobiles between 1885 and 2008, divided into three periods: initial architectural competition, architectural dominance of the ICE, and renewed architectural competition. Figure 12.12 shows a shakeout in the market that allowed one architecture—the ICE car—to dominate all others. The principles and architecture of the internal combustion engine (ICE) design that has dominated the market since the mid 1930s have remained relatively unchanged. [18] Because the entire market adopted this dominant architecture, the basic risk of not knowing which architecture would prevail was completely eliminated. This allowed manufacturers to focus on innovation at the subsystem level, rather than the overall system architecture level.

Figure 12.12 Performance of various automotive architectures from 1885 to 2008. [19]

(Source: Gorbea, C.; Fricke, E.; Lindemann, U., “The Design of Future Cars in a New Age of Architectural Competition,” ASME 2008 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE. Brooklyn, New York, 3-6 August 2008. Reprinted with permission).

Figure 12.12 Full Alternative Text

The dominance of the internal combustion engine emerged only after two key events: first, the dramatic decrease in price achieved through assembly line production of ICE cars, and second, the development of the electric starter. These price and quality improvements to the ICE car made it affordable to the masses and a better solution than all other architectures in the market by 1920.

Steam cars built from 1920 to 1930 remained a high-end market product. Significant improvements were introduced to compete with ICE cars, such as the integration of a condenser to recycle water, and a spark ignition starter that could provide the car with enough starting pressure within one minute. However, these systems added tremendous weight and increased the overall price of the already low production volumes. The steam car that had dominated since the 1780s eventually disappeared completely from the market by 1930.

During the architectural dominance of the ICE, incremental innovation flourished. Generations of cars exhibited improvements to major subsystems only, while sticking with the same basic architecture. During this time of architectural dominance, automakers paid little attention to alternative powertrains and focused primarily on generating core competencies that supported the optimization of the dominant architecture.

Future Architectural Competition

In Figure 12.12, the current time period (1998 to 2008) shows a renewed focus on vehicle architecture. The key historical events that marked the beginning of this new age were the reintroduction of electric vehicles into the market and the first mass-produced hybrid electric cars. Presently, new architectures are appearing in the automotive market, most notably a revival of electric and hybrid electric vehicles. Will the future of the ICE car mirror that of the steam car? At the moment, some auto manufacturers are trying to shift their focus from incremental innovation to architectural innovation. The shift has not come easily, because most organizations have been structured around the major subsystems within the automobile. Most auto manufacturers have invested in developing their core competencies in areas specific to the design of internal combustion engine cars.

The shift toward architectural competition is significant because it can place established firms in jeopardy if they are not able to adapt to the new competitive landscape that is developing. This was the case for most steam car manufacturers during the 1920s that failed to adapt to market changes. The electric car was a loser in 1910. Could it become a winner again in a new period of architectural competition?

..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.

Table of Contents for 12.7 Summary

Create new playlist

Sign In

Sign Up

Table of Contents for
12.7 Summary