Development of an innovative product such as a Tesla electric motor vehicle, the Tesla Roadster to suit the current needs of the market is often a reliable and strenuous process. According to Eberhard and Tarpenning (2006) the initial process requires understanding product development. Identifying a core product concept is necessary in order to grasp the contents of the final product reveal. In such cases, as reported under the stage-gate theory, determining the primary product attributes and architecture of the product is imperative. In this case, the Tesla required an electric battery that could power the entire vehicle as well as other operational features. As such, the battery had to possess an energy efficient powerhouse component which suggestively inclined to a lithium ion battery. Hence, the plan was to discover whether the battery was ideal to power the innovative model car and whether it would satisfy the growing trend for fuel efficient vehicles. The success in building or modelling a lithium ion battery was actualized with mechanical engineers opting to include the efficiency based on travel and wheel-to-wheel efficiency. Coupled with statistical information of how potential customers deemed their ideal Tesla car, the product innovation was geared towards a processing plan which encompassed architectural design and mechanical engineering concepts (Hardman, Shiu & Steinberger-Wilckens, 2015).
Concurrently, with approval of what the car model would look like as well as contain, the subsequent process of product and process planning was underway. In reference to Eberhard and Tarpenning (2006), Tesla’s new model car would require specified processing equipment and technical competencies.
Most of the product’s components would be generic including the materials to manufacture the car as well as interior design materials. The idea was to minimize costs of production so as not to injure sales at the end of line production. The cost-benefit analysis thrived on presenting a prototype to the market and observing reactions prior to actual production. Inherently, the product planning process was a success with a large pool of reviews indicating high rise in orders and demand for the vehicle.
To cater for the increased demand, the company, Tesla Motors, opted to have a detailed meeting on how to empower the plant to cater for the new Tesla electric car. The initial phase in reference to the report by Eberhard and Tarpenning (2006), indicates that the company opted to introduce a new design for the motor vehicle since the other pre-dated models had a different engine model (Sommer et al., 2015). By identifying the design and production line, the company was able to articulate the costs it would take to introduce, renovate as well as reinvent the business to suit the new Tesla Roadster model. In summary, the company introduced two production lines for the battery assembly which totaled the production line capacities to 1500 cars per cycle. From this, the company was able to initially test its prototype prior to launching the actual product to the customers.
The stage-gate model demonstrates that product and market testing is an imperative stage in production in order to attest to the quality of the product produced. In line with this, the company, Tesla Motors, tested its new range motor vehicle using high-end skilled drivers who would test the car on different road designs and test the car’s operability (Sommer et al., 2015). A few volunteers from the public were also incorporated into the testing phase. A survey was then conducted in which the customer market indicated its ability to purchase and this meant that buyer power was willing to purchase the vehicle.
Conclusively, as elucidated by Eberhard and Tarpenning (2006), Tesla Motors ventured into electric vehicle manufacturing calculating the overall head costs and cost-benefit to the business. Hence, the commercialization of the production units was a success with America topping its sale market since 2004.
3. Product and Service Process Matrix
Service-Process Matrix
Product-process matrix
Possess one service cycle: service delivery and duration (Montgomery, 2016).
Has five process cycle stages: project, job shop, batch, assembly line and continuity.
Presents information on variability based on services types and continuity.
The table offers conjecture between amounts of units produced and other variations.
The graph offers variation based on variety, flexibility and cost of the entire production line.
Offers variety based on tandem repeats of information based on machinery operations, handling capacity and flow continuity (Guisado-González, Wright, & Guisado-Tato, 2017).
For the graph, there is little representation on information on volume per production process (Montgomery, 2016).
The table offers a clearer perspective on how volumes are handled each production process (Son et al., 2018).
Offers cost analysis based on volume of services provided.
Does not offer cost analysis according to volume but in unit produced at the end of each production line (Guisado-González, Wright, & Guisado-Tato, 2017).
References
Eberhard, M., & Tarpenning, M. (2006). The 21 st Century Electric Car Tesla Motors. Tesla Motors.
Guisado-González, M., Wright, L. T., & Guisado-Tato, M. (2017). Product–process matrix and complementarity approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(3), 441-459.
Hardman, S., Shiu, E., & Steinberger-Wilckens, R. (2015). Changing the fate of Fuel Cell Vehicles: Can lessons be learnt from Tesla Motors?. international journal of hydrogen energy, 40(4), 1625-1638.
Montgomery, R. T. (2016). Using Multiple Objective Decision Analysis to Position Federal Product and Service Codes Within the Kraljic Portfolio Matrix.
Sommer, A. F., Hedegaard, C., Dukovska-Popovska, I., & Steger-Jensen, K. (2015). Improved product development performance through Agile/Stage-Gate hybrids: The next-generation Stage-Gate process?. Research-Technology Management, 58(1), 34-45.
Son, H., Kwon, Y., Park, S. C., & Lee, S. (2018). Using a design structure matrix to support technology roadmapping for product–service systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(3), 337-350.
