The Hindu Business Line : Sophistication or overkill?

Automotive technology In recent times, automotive technology has begun to resemble aerospace engineering — in terms of increasing complexity, computerisation and cost. Is this really what the customer needs, wonders ACHAL RAGHAVAN, and suggests a way out.

When you examine recent trends in automotive technology, you cannot miss noticing the increasing role electronic systems are beginning to play in the modern car. Experts predict that electronics and software will soon account for close to 40 per cent of the total cost of a car, even taking into account the dramatic reductions in the cost of computing power. This is because of the rapid increase in the use of computers to control and monitor many functions — safety and stability, comfort, navigation, fuel efficiency, "infotainment" and so on. When a customer drives a modern car, she is dependent on error-free functioning of hundreds of thousands of lines of computer code. This points to the critical need for building "dependability" into these complex electronic systems.

Aerospace and automotive convergence

One phenomenon that is very visible to industry insiders is the increasing "osmosis," or convergence, of technologies used in automotive and aerospace industries. Here are some typical examples of aerospace technologies finding their way into automotive applications:

Collision avoidance systems that provide advance alerts to the driver about a potential collision with another car.

Navigation systems that help the driver reach the destination by the best route, using satellite-based global positioning methods.

Engine management systems that optimise fuel economy and minimise pollution

Stability control systems that assist the driver maintain stability while the vehicle is moving at speed and changing direction.

Head-up displays where the driver sees essential information displayed at eye-level on the windscreen, so that he does not have to take his eyes off the road even momentarily.

"Drive-by-wire" technologies that are taking the car from mechanically intensive controls to electronically intensive ones.

Composite material to reduce weight, while simultaneously increasing structural strength.

Aerodynamic design to reduce wind resistance (measured by "coefficient of drag" or Cd) and increase stability and fuel efficiency.

Some fundamental differences

On the face of it, this trend is good — after all, which car owner wouldn't like to experience the advanced technology that a jet pilot uses?But one has to be aware of some of the basic differences between aerospace and automotive domains:

End-users of aerospace technologies are highly trained and skilled pilots, who are at home in a cockpit that displays multiple bits of critical information simultaneously.The average car user is a non-technical person, who might feel threatened by such complexity.

Maintenance of aircraft is carried out in a disciplined and planned manner by trained technicians, using sophisticated facilities. The automotive service industry, represented by dealers and mechanics, is nowhere near being as sophisticated. Already, a significant portion of automotive repairs is being caused by software defects — a phenomenon unknown to the auto industry barely a decade ago.

Buyers of civilian and military aircraft are highly technically aware. It is possible to convince them of the "value" of advanced technologies, and make them pay more for it. This is not true in the case of cars. In fact, car prices worldwide have remained flat for the last 15 years, when adjusted for inflation. Car buyers world over are extremely cost conscious, barring the very few who go in for high-end exotic/luxury brands.

Looking at these structural differences, it becomes fairly evident that "stuffing" the mass-market car with more and more technology is not necessarily the way to go. This is not a nostalgic appeal to revert to the days of the very basic Ford Model T. But there is a limit to the rate at which the customer and the support systems can absorb technology — especially in markets where geographic spread is large, and infrastructure poor.

Technology: Fascination or frustration?

Recent experiences in the automotive industry show that the customer's response to increasingly complex technology is not always positive. While sophisticated customers in Europe (typically, Germany) may still look for more advanced technologies in new models, many of the other markets do not behave in the same way. As the level of sophistication increases, the initial fascination for "hi-tech" increasingly gives way to frustration caused by the complexity. This is beginning to be observed even in advanced markets like the US, where psychologists are coming up with terms like "computer rage" — to describe what happens, for example, when car windows refuse to go up when it starts to rain.

Optimisation: The way forward

While automotive technology — aided by aerospace — will continue to march forward, the mantra for the future is optimisation. The average customer for cars in the developing markets is still at a stage when more sophisticated technology would appeal to him. But the "selection criteria" for technology, from the point of view of the car manufacturer, could be the following:

User-friendliness that ensures that the driver is not overwhelmed and frustrated by a dazzling array of instrumentation and computer interfaces. Most people would be quite happy with knowing just the speed of the car and "distance to empty," supported by simple warning lights for oil, coolant and battery levels.

Robustness of the design that takes into account the operating environment and the sophistication of the service backup.

Some time back, the authorised dealer for my state-of-the-art car (of European origin) used a water hose to "wash" the car down under the bonnet — thereby causing a critical sensor to malfunction. On another occasion, he cut and spliced some wiring to retrofit a reading lamp.

This resulted in sparking, which confused the computer into giving random commands to the engine to speed up without warning, thereby causing a safety hazard.

Clearly, the dealer was out of sync with the technology his company was using. At a different level, making electronic designs more "robust" also means duplication, where a backup computer (or CPU) takes over if the first one fails; or where two computers compare notes and then take action if they agree, and so on. But all this means significant complexity and cost.

Safety, convenience and value, where the customer would be prepared to spend a little more if the car is safer and more comfortable. But here again, the classical "cost vs value" equation will apply. For example, many of us dread having to "parallel park" in the narrow space between two cars; but how much are we prepared to pay for the recently introduced automated parking system — where the car's computers take over the task?

A customer-friendly way out of this puzzle would be for car companies to offer the customer a base model, along with a detailed "menu" of technologically advanced features, clearly spelling out the incremental cost for each feature. The customer can then be allowed to "engineer" the car (and not just choose the colour and the seating configuration).

But the assumption here is that the base version of the car would be an ideal amalgam of elegant simplicity and low cost, while incorporating cost-effective "minimum" technology. And therein lies the challenge.

(The author is a strategy and business excellence consultant based in Bangalore. He can be contacted at achalraghavan@yahoo.co.in)

More Stories on : Technology | Automobiles

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Wanted: A humane approach

More power to regulation

SEZs: Govt must re-do the homework

Piped natural gas may not be a pipedream

Beacons of hope

Sophistication or overkill?

`We expect India to be to Unilever what China has been to other companies'

Vizag Port Trust clarifies