Automotive R&D: Evolution, not Revolution

Challenge: Trying to modernise R&D using rigid "Top-Down" rollouts. This works for simple tasks (like baking bread), but for complex systems, it creates resistance and "Green Report" illusions while the real engineering suffers.

Solution: Shift from enforcement to engagement. We empower teams to drive changes bottom-up, ensuring the process serves the engineer, not the auditor. Leadership backs this with resources, not just mandates.

Reference: Rebentisch & Prusak (Wiley, 2017) – BMW & VW Cases.

Challenge: Applying legacy methods to a radical new product design guarantees failure. You cannot build a Tesla using a diesel-era org chart.

Solution: Treat the enterprise as a system. We establish centralized decision-making and an explicit architecture before development starts. The schedule becomes a dynamic reference, not a rigid holy book.

Reference: Axehill et al. (INCOSE, 2021) – "Brownfield to Greenfield".

Challenge: Treating ASPICE (Descriptive) with the same religious rigidity as ISO 26262 (Prescriptive). This leads to "Assessment Engineering" — working for the audit, not for the product.

Solution: Intelligent Compliance. We distinguish the "Bible" (Safety Laws) from the "Guidebook" (Process Models). We implement strict traceability where lives are at stake, but allow pragmatic flexibility where efficiency is key.

Challenge: Your best hardware engineers are promoted to lead complex, software-heavy vehicle programs. They often struggle to manage the "invisible" complexity of software, human and integration.

Solution: I act as a sparring partner for your new leaders. I help them transition from "Component Thinking" to "System Life Cycle Technical Leadership", enabling them to lead cross-functional teams with confidence.

Challenge: Hardware and Software lifecycles are out of sync. Suppliers miss drops, causing integration delays that paralyze the entire program.

Solution: Schedule becomes a dynamic reference. Teams and Suppliers report delays in advance. Integration Team has a mission and resources to adapt promtly to the new schedule. The essence: your enterprise gets a quick fix to survive the project and to Prevent Integration Hell for another one.

Reference: Herzog et al. (INCOSE, 2022) – "A 4-Box Development Model".

Challenge: Engineers burn out manually creating evidence for homologation, distracting them from actual innovation.

Solution: Meaningful and lean design data traceability allows automated generation of test procedures. It helps to avoid duplicated tests and spare resources. Reusability of test procedures and results, including for homologation, is clear.

Challenge: It is no longer just about ISO 26262. You face a tsunami of shifting regional standards: strict UNECE regulations in Europe versus rapidly evolving GB standards in China. Keeping a global platform compliant is becoming a full-time nightmare.

Solution: Modular Compliance Architecture. We isolate region-specific requirements into dedicated system elements. This allows you to adapt to new Chinese or EU regulations by updating specific modules, without re-validating the entire vehicle platform.

Reference: UNECE R155/R156 vs. GB Standards.

Challenge: Teams treat infrastructure (Backend) and user functions (Features) as peers, forcing them into the same "alignment meetings." They waste hours discussing structural API changes (which happen rarely) instead of focusing on their distinct functional goals.

Solution: Single System Ownership. We group these layers under one System Owner who governs the interface. We separate "Contract Negotiations" (rare, formal API updates between Backend and Features) from "Functional Syncs" (frequent collaboration between Feature teams).

Reference: Conway’s Law & Team Topologies.