4 ms·

The answer to this, I would think, would be to have a small part of the company whose soul purpose is to disrupt the larger company. Then Toyota and VW might ha

The answer to this, I would think, would be to have a small part of the company whose soul purpose is to disrupt the larger company. Then Toyota and VW might have built Tesla in house without supply chain worries. When their in-house Tesla-like company proved a success, they could reasonably afford to upend their old supply chain: self-disruption.

prawn 7y ago
This is often referred to as a "skunkworks" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_Works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_Works
dmix 7y ago
It’s still a big deal to the wider auto industry to have an entire supply chain disrupted. Even if that doesn’t mean much to the end consumer when the big car companies switch to off the shelf computing.
norswap 7y ago
Considering how much money went into the making of the real Tesla, is that really something these big auto-makers could have afforded?
- bcrosby95 7y ago
  Most of that money went into things the big auto makers already had rather than anything particularly unique to Tesla.
  - norswap 7y ago
    On the whole, fair point. In particular, the article talk about supply line disruption. Rebuilding your supply lines means you can't use the existing ones, and that's certain not to be cheap either.
michaelbuckbee 7y ago
Maybe worth noting that GM tried this with it's Saturn brand - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Corporation
paramk 7y ago
So Tesla is doing what Clayton predicted twenty years back.
- James_Henry 7y ago
  I don't know if he predicted that electric cars would follow the disruption pattern, but yes Clayton's theory seems to apply here in some sense.
earthboundkid 7y ago
When companies try to do this, the other divisions attempt to smoother the new division in the crib and typically succeed. If you had good internal politics, they wouldn't do this, but if you had good internal politics, you wouldn't need a new division either.
- James_Henry 7y ago
  > but if you had good internal politics, you wouldn't need a new division either. I don't know if I agree with this unless you mean to define "good internal politics" as internal politics that drives a company to self-disrupt. As shown by the article, self-disruption isn't possible as a big company because the friction of changing things like supply chains and other capital. You really need to start another company that, in a sense, competes (and sometimes at least for a time complements) the larger company. Good internal politics would help to not squash internal competition, but it isn't, I think, enough to purposefully set up that competition.
jungturk 7y ago
Toyota has this with Toyota Connected, a wholly-owned subsidiary that's pushing software/mobility/advanced applications across the Toyota product lines. They make it quite clear in their public conversations that Tesla-style innovation rates are the goal, but in private conversations lament that they're stuck working in a 3-year product cycle due to the innovation rates in their supply chains (as most of the specs and hardware are generated in collaboration with external suppliers). As a sibling comment mentions, this structure also creates lots of resentment in some of the traditional Toyota departments who are being disrupted by this.

prawn 7y ago

This is often referred to as a "skunkworks" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_Works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_Works

dmix 7y ago

It’s still a big deal to the wider auto industry to have an entire supply chain disrupted. Even if that doesn’t mean much to the end consumer when the big car companies switch to off the shelf computing.

norswap 7y ago

Considering how much money went into the making of the real Tesla, is that really something these big auto-makers could have afforded?

bcrosby95 7y ago
Most of that money went into things the big auto makers already had rather than anything particularly unique to Tesla.
- norswap 7y ago
  On the whole, fair point. In particular, the article talk about supply line disruption. Rebuilding your supply lines means you can't use the existing ones, and that's certain not to be cheap either.

michaelbuckbee 7y ago

Maybe worth noting that GM tried this with it's Saturn brand - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Corporation

paramk 7y ago

So Tesla is doing what Clayton predicted twenty years back.

James_Henry 7y ago
I don't know if he predicted that electric cars would follow the disruption pattern, but yes Clayton's theory seems to apply here in some sense.

earthboundkid 7y ago

When companies try to do this, the other divisions attempt to smoother the new division in the crib and typically succeed. If you had good internal politics, they wouldn't do this, but if you had good internal politics, you wouldn't need a new division either.

James_Henry 7y ago
> but if you had good internal politics, you wouldn't need a new division either. I don't know if I agree with this unless you mean to define "good internal politics" as internal politics that drives a company to self-disrupt. As shown by the article, self-disruption isn't possible as a big company because the friction of changing things like supply chains and other capital. You really need to start another company that, in a sense, competes (and sometimes at least for a time complements) the larger company. Good internal politics would help to not squash internal competition, but it isn't, I think, enough to purposefully set up that competition.

jungturk 7y ago

Toyota has this with Toyota Connected, a wholly-owned subsidiary that's pushing software/mobility/advanced applications across the Toyota product lines. They make it quite clear in their public conversations that Tesla-style innovation rates are the goal, but in private conversations lament that they're stuck working in a 3-year product cycle due to the innovation rates in their supply chains (as most of the specs and hardware are generated in collaboration with external suppliers). As a sibling comment mentions, this structure also creates lots of resentment in some of the traditional Toyota departments who are being disrupted by this.