Industrial Design, Innovation & New Product Development |
Final assignment |
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 2
2. Analysis of our team performance 3
3. Design analysis 5
3.1. Introduction 5
3.2. Management of Design 5
3.3. City Car Simulation 6
3.3.1. The „Design Thinking Framework” 6
188.8.131.52. What is 6
184.108.40.206. What if 7
220.127.116.11. What wows 8
18.104.22.168. What works 8
3.3.2. Design Evaluation 8
22.214.171.124. Design Analysis Group 1 - UPARK 10
126.96.36.199. Design Analysis Group 2 - EgoCAR 11
188.8.131.52. Design Analysis Group 3 - BCBL 11
184.108.40.206. Design Analysis Group 4 - Bao-Bay 12
4. Business model analysis 13
4.1. Group 1 - UPARK 14
...view middle of the document...
An analysis of the design of each of the cars presented at the Geneva Show: what was good and bad about each of these from a design perspective?
3. An analysis of the business model adopted by each of the MCTs at the Geneva Show: what were the strengths and weaknesses of each model?
2. Analysis of our team performance
We were quite happy with the final outcome and proud that we won the Geneva Show.
On the positive side we could observe a very strong team spirit. Everyone was eager to win and excited to adapt the innovative capabilities we have learned in the lectures.
During the first group meeting we developed a first draft of a business model canvas and verbally agreed on project plan according to the spiral model.
Further success factors of the team were the quick and informal adaption of our design and business model according to immediate market changes in form of CNN press releases or market research reports. Being able to adapt quickly with a limited amount of coordination was quite remarkable and underlined the good team work during the project. This helped us to change our initial business model from a business model from a family car concept to a car for young professionals quite easily. Nevertheless for us the key success factor was our early and continuous prototyping. Right from the start our software engineer got familiar with the software and started testing while design and engineering were working in parallel. This gave us finally the confidence that we didn’t need to buy external software and was also the key to the outstanding performance at the Geneva show.
Even though this all sounds like there were no problems we believe we still have some areas to improve. We have to acknowledge that our overall project organization was rather weak and maybe it was also a bit of luck to be still successful in the end. The kick-off meeting was not organized professionally and the project manager did not communicate with the team members properly. This led to the problem that not everybody was aware of the tasks of each team member and ultimately the whole picture of the project. Furthermore the discussed project schedule should have been written down instead of a verbal agreement only. This led to a lack of follow up by the project manager who then failed to organize enough team meetings to foster communication and knowledge transfer. Also from a marketing perspective a lot of information, although the information was available, wasn’t well shared and communicated with the design and engineering team. This resulted that also our business model canvas wasn’t updated even though we made consequently changes to our initial concept, sometimes without realizing it. This problem was increased through the forced change in staff assignments which left half the team confused about the new job and the work of their predecessor because of lack in leadership in group organization.
As a general improvement we see the need to...