Electric Vehicles: Struggles in Creating a Market

Abraham Sin Oih Yu, Lydia Lopes Correia Silva, Cristina L. Chu, Paulo Tromboni S. Nascimento, Alceu S. Camargo Jr.
University of So Paulo, Business Administration Dept., So Paulo, Brazil
Abstract--Toyota is the pioneer in the hybrid electric vehicle, and today almost all major car assemblers produce hybrid cars. Now, several auto manufacturers are preparing for the commercial launches of battery powered electric vehicles in 2011. Another battle for dominance in electric car market has started. However, the development of technologies for electric cars has a very long history and presently there is a huge diversity of technological solutions in development. In order to understand the evolution of electric vehicles, we carried out two related case studies. In the first case study, we analyze the experience of General Motors in the last 40 years in developing electric vehicles. Our focuses are on the objectives of each development, technologies employed and external factors that stimulated each effort. The results show that in the first 20 years the main objective is to explore different technologies. The intention to launch a commercial electric vehicle only appears in the last 20 years. In the second case study, we analyze propulsion technologies and product architectures electric vehicles announced, in the last few years, by established auto manufacturers and new entrants. The results show that innovations in product architecture can provide a niche market for electric vehicles.

I. INTRODUCTION Even recognizing the importance of mobility as a key vector for the growth of a globalized economy and for the development of socio-cultural well-being, the concern with the environment and with sustainability of the energy sector now puts the spotlight on transportation as a central focus of attention worldwide [29]. To meet these challenges, the automotive industry has invested considerable resources in research and development in a broad portfolio of new technologies related to vehicle propulsion, ranging from improvements in conventional internal combustion engines [41], operating with fossil fuels or renewables (biofuels) to electric propulsion systems, hybrid, fuel cells, or combinations of those. Increasingly present in the auto show and receiving great attention from the media and public around the world, propulsion systems based partly or wholly in electric power train has been outstanding in recent years as an attractive solution to environmental and energy security issues related to sustainable transportation of the future. Major automakers have already introduced electric cars such as Chevrolet Volt by General Motors (GM) and Leaf (Renault/Nissan), and they are gearing-up their manufacturing plants for massproduction of these EVs (Electric Vehicles). Although these cars are commonly known as EVs, there is no dominant design yet, as defined by Utterback [39], in EV. GMs Volt is a so called extended-range hybrid electric vehicle. It is

powered by an internal combustion engine (ICE), batteries and grid electricity. This technology is also known as a plugin hybrid. Renault/Nissans Leaf is powered only by batteries: a battery electric vehicle (BEV). There are many other varieties of EV, including not only differences in propulsion systems but also in vehicle architecture, being introduced into the world market in the last few years. It seems that these different electric vehicle technologies and architectures are ready for the coming battles that will determine, in the first place, which variety (or varieties) will be dominant in the EV market(s); and in the second place, whether the EV will displace ICE vehicles. It is interesting to remember that this is not the first time that the EV is battling ICE cars. Around the beginning of the 20th century, the EV was competing against ICE and other propulsion systems such as steam engine. Actually, in 1900 the total number of EV produced was higher than that of vehicles equipped with ICE in the USA [16]. This is what we call the first wave of EV. The result of this first battle is well known: the victory of ICE. Now, one hundred years later, we are witnessing another wave of enthusiasm for EV. This paper is focused on this current wave of EVs. We use Suarezs framework for technological battle [34] to investigate the technical trajectories traveled by one company and to analyze technological strategies adopted by participating firms. For Suarez [34], a battle for technological dominance is characterized by a sequence of five phases and respective milestones: Phase I is characterized by the research and development (R&D) build-up in a technological field. The milestone that defines the beginning of this phase is when a pioneering firm starts its efforts in R&D applied to the production of a new commercial product (T0). Phase II is described by the search for the technical feasibility of a new product. The emergence of the first prototype in the technological field is the milestone that indicates its beginning (TP). Phase III is characterized by the effort in creating the market for the technological field. The milestone that signals its initiation is the launch of the first commercial product (TL), which introduces the technology developed to the market. Phase IV is the decisive battle and its onset is marked by the presence of a clear early front-runner (milestone TF). There is no guarantee that a front-runner will win the battle. When a dominant design emerges (TD), the technological battle enters in Phase V: Post-dominance. Competition in this phase is often an intense withinstandard rivalry based on licensed dominant technology. This paper uses two analyses to better contextualize this enthusiasm for electric cars that can help better understand

978-1-890843-23-6/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

the risks involved in entering the current wave. The first analysis concerns Suarezs Phases I and II: we will examine the attempts, and their motivations, by a major automaker, GM, in developing electric cars over these last 50 years. This long period of retrospection allows an understanding of the interactions of a complex set of factors that culminate with the latest commercial releases of this company. The second analysis focuses on Suarezs Phase III. We investigate a large sample of EVs announced or launched commercially in the past 15 years. This analysis enables an exploration of the evolution of architectures of EV and its technologies. This exploration can help decision-makers, both for business and governments, to understand the potential impacts of these innovations for the survival of enterprises and the modifications required in the infrastructure of local transport. The analysis of this sample of EVs shows that there is no clear front-runner yet in the EV battle ground; therefore we do not analyze Phases IV and V in this paper. The next section provides a brief context for the current wave of EV by discussing electromobility. Section III presents and analyzes the trajectories traveled by GM in developing EV in the last 50 years. Section IV analyzes the EVs launched commercially in the last 15 years. Discussions and conclusions are in Section V. II. ELECTROMOBILITY - INNOVATION IN THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY BY INTRODUCING ELECTRIC ENGINES The current electric vehicles - undergoing tests, already launched or announced - may be classified into four categories according to the International Energy Agency [23], namely: Hybrids or Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) use energy from an electric motor to supplement the propulsion of a conventional internal combustion engine (ICE), using petrol or biofuel. They travel initial short distances on electricity alone, and when the battery that stores electric energy is exhausted or when the vehicle reaches a certain speed, the internal combustion engine starts operating, driving the wheels and also recharging the battery pack. The plug-in hybrids or Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) also combine the internal combustion engine and electric motor, this being, however, rechargeable in the charging stations. In pure electric vehicles or Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) the battery must be recharged from the charging stations (primary energy source), since an electric vehicle has no capacity on board to recharge the set of battery cells. Still undergoing research and testing, is the technology of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV), in which the fuel cell converts an energy carrier (e.g., hydrogen) into electricity. Hydrogen can be fueled directly in the vehicle or can be produced on board of the vehicle when other fuels, like gasoline, ethanol or methanol, are used as fuel. In the late nineteenth century, there was an era of intense brewing of competing technologies for automotive propulsion. At that time coexisted and competed, steam

engine external combustion, internal combustion engine operating on fossil fuels with biofuels, and electric motor. Nevertheless, during this period, the greater share of market sales was of the electric motor car, invented in 1834 [8]. In the last decade of the nineteenth century there were dozens of manufacturers of electric vehicles in Europe and the United States [28]. And even if it was characterized more by the simpler handling than the competing alternatives, in addition to being silent and not having exhaust gas pollutants, the electric motorization soon gave way to internal combustion engines, partly due to limitations associated with low range autonomy batteries, their high recharging time, as well as their limited lifespan. And electric cars virtually disappeared from the scene from as early as 1930 [8]. At the beginning of the twentieth century (period 1900-1920) the dissemination of gasoline-powered internal combustion engines was rapid, probably not for technical reasons, but mainly due to favorable factors in the socio-economic and organizational contexts - the externalities to technology [40]. The oil industry has contributed enormously by installing an extensive network of fuel distribution; by having the intense oil drilling activity hold down the price of oil, besides the notable booming of roads, especially in the United States [35]. The modern history of electric vehicles can be considered to have initiated in the 70s, when oil prices soared with the goal of reducing the consumption of fuels derived from this source of energy. To that were added the environmentalists arguments in favor of the electric vehicle option. The resumption of marketing of electric vehicles took place in the mid-1990s, in the United States through GM, which launched the EV1 model in 1996, the first mass-produced electric car. The automaker was followed by Ford (Think and Range models), Honda (EV Plus), Toyota (RAV4) and Nissan (Altra EV). All these models were sold only through leases, costing between 250 dollars and 600 dollars monthly [27]. Despite the success among users, in 1999 GM interrupted the production of the EV1 (just over 1,000 units were produced) on the grounds of impossibility of obtaining profitability [36]. In recent years, even having better performance, the technological gaps that contributed to the limited use of electric propulsion in twentieth century transport are still present. Despite the challenges, the concept of electromobility began to spread and has been receiving great attention from the media and public policies around the world. Currently, most major automakers are engaged in the development and commercial launch of pure and hybrid electric models on the world market. Competition in the market for electric cars has gained speed and more participants. While enthusiastic multinational executives announced development programs of the second generation of electric models for 2015-2020 and electromobility emerges as the most promising alternative technology to dominate personal transportation in the future, the market generally hesitates before the innovation. Consumers see the alternative hybrid merely as vehicles that have been replacing their

propulsion systems and buyers do not yet seem familiar with the new transport model associated with the electric motor technology. As it can be perceived from the previous explanation, the electric motor technology represents a great opportunity to reposition a competitive and mature industry such as automotive regarding concerns about the sustainability of the current model. On the other hand, the challenges to be faced are huge, particularly by the traditional automakers and their supply chains and distributors, since electromobility represents much more than a mere replacement technology of a vehicle system. The widespread introduction of electric vehicles will generate enormous impact across the industry, leading to a significant reconfiguration of the existing structure. They are changes that involve from significant modifications in the industrial production chain (its participants and the relationships among them), to new systems infrastructure supply and replenishment of energy, including new business models, marketing, use and ownership of vehicles and their energy systems, as well as institutional relations and government policies. III. GM - 50 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH ELECTRIC VEHICLE We intend to understand some key phases of battle for technological dominance in electric vehicles from the perspective of one major car assembler. Since the Decisive Battle (Phase IV) for EV may have just started with the launches of Volt (GM) and Leaf (Renault / Nissan) in 2010 2011, this section is focusing only on the three first three phases: R&D Build Up, Technical Feasibility, and Creating the Market. GM designed and commercialized EV in the beginning of the last century. However, the ICE vehicles became the dominant design around 1920s and the electric vehicle technology hibernated for almost forty years. But in the 60s, the concerns with pollution and air quality in large urban areas began [32]. This encouraged GM to re-start its R&D programs for vehicles with electric propulsion system [16]. This section analyzes the experience of GM in developing EV from 1960s onward. Why it is relevant to study technological battle from a companys perspective? Our results show that GM was able to announce the first commercial launch of EV only after 13 different prototypes and more than 30 years. Therefore, for a company such as GM, the participation in a technological battle such as EV is an endurance run and a complicated one at the best. This study contributes to the understanding of this process and which may provide support for managers involved in this kind of technological battles. This study is certainly not the first one trying to look at a phenomenon similar to Suarezs technological battles. Lynn and associates [25] describe the probe and learning process employed by companies such as GE and Corning in searching markets for radical innovations. These probe and learn

processes also took many years. Although our study of GMs attempts at developing EV can also be described as a probe and learn process. Our theoretical contribution is that we uncover some key differences and are able to distinguish two types of probe and learn (P&L) processes: technological and market P&L. We also explore the relationships between these two P&L processes based on the experience of GM in EV and cases from Lynn, Morone and Paulson [25]. A. Methodology In studying the first three phases of Suarezs technological battle we focus on the milestones within GM: the start of R&D in EV; the working prototypes; and the launching of commercial products. Since we are looking at GMs milestones, it is irrelevant, for this section, which company is the first one to reach these milestones. Furthermore, the identification of the first milestone - the start of GMs R&D in EV depends mostly on access to GMs internal documents, much more difficult to obtain; therefore we looked only for the second and third GMs milestones in this research. By working prototype, Suarez means technically feasible prototype [34]. The search on the experience of GM in developing EV is based on secondary information sources: technical papers, media news, government agencies, Internet sites, etc. These sources provide information so that we can identify EV prototypes and commercial launches by GM from 1964 onward, including their specs, and sometimes information about their R&D process such as participants (persons and organizational units), development objectives and results, lessons learned, relation between prototypes (such as the fact that the EV1 derived from Impact model), organizational infightings, etc. The year of 1964 is defined by the first GM EV prototype identified, Electrovair, in our research in the current wave. B. GMs 50 years of history with EV Data on GMs EV prototypes and commercial launches, including some technical information, are displayed on Table 1. Not all GM prototypes are in this table; we include those EV prototypes that are new platforms: new electric power train or new chassis. Derivative prototypes, such as Electric S-10, are excluded from this table. This Table shows that GM developed 13 different prototypes in 32 years before its first, but unsuccessful, commercial launch of electrical vehicle in 1996: the EV1. One can observe, by analyzing the timing of EVs developed by GM in these 46 years, a quite uneven distribution over time: the decade of 60s is the most productive with six prototypes; and the decade of 1980s has just one prototype: the Sunraycer. The fact that all three commercial launches occurred in the last two decades indicates that between the beginning of the 1960s and the mid 1990s GM was in Phase I (R&D Build Up) and Phase II (Technical Feasibility) of the technological battle [34]. The first entry of GM into the Phase III (Creating the Market) occurred in the second half of 90s,

and now the company has just announced the second entry into Phase III with the launch of Volt in November of 2010. Therefore we have shown that this chronological sequence of phases in developing EV by GM follows precisely the integrative framework for technological battle proposed by Suarez [34]. Table 1 also shows a clear trend in battery technology evolution. In the first thirty years the lead-acid battery was the preferred choice by GM, with occasional use of silverzinc and nickel-zinc batteries. By the late 90s there was a clear shift to NiMH and Li-ion batteries. This last one is used by Chevrolet Volt. GM had an internal division, Delco Remy, responsible in developing batteries and related electrical systems for EV prototypes. This division also developed and produced batteries for conventional ICE vehicles and other applications such as aerospace vehicles. For example, Delco Remy developed the silver-zinc battery for the guidance system of Minute-man missile. Later on, GM spun-off the battery business in the late 90s, thus ending a more than 70 years history in this industrial segment. With regard to the choice of propulsion system for EV, the data collected show that in the 60s GM tested all three types: fuel cell (one prototype), battery EV (two prototypes) and hybrid EV (three prototypes). These numbers indicate that GM was giving equal opportunities to these last two propulsion systems in the 60s. However, in the 70s and 80s, GM decided to bet only on the BEV, even though there were only four prototypes developed by GM in these two decades. We will examine the reasons for this low number of prototypes in the following pages. In the 90s GM reestablished the importance of HEV in its R&D efforts, for example, developed hybrid version of EV1. In the 2000s

GM was betting even more with hybrid and no BEV prototype was developed in this decade. In summary, this review of the propulsion systems shows that, in the last 40 years, GMs R&D efforts in EV have changed from a BEV centered program (in the 70s) to a HEV centered one culminating with the commercial launch of a plug-in HEV (Volt) in 2010. Another pattern we can apprehend in Table 1 is the use of existing or new vehicle platform to build EV prototype. We argue that if the sole development objective is to test technical feasibility of the electrical propulsion system or battery system, then the use of existing GM vehicle platform would be the norm since it would reduce the development costs. In the case that a new vehicle platform is developed for the EV prototype, we would expect the aim is to optimize the overall EV performance by integrating different systems. We argue that this is probably a necessary step toward commercial launch. The data from Table 1 mostly confirm the above reasoning. As discussed before, GM was centered in the Technical Feasibility Phase in the first two decades (60s and 70s). Table 1 shows that of the nine prototypes developed in this period, only two, GM512 Hybrid and Electric, had vehicle platform developed specifically for them. On the other hand, most prototypes developed in the 90s and 2000s with intention to commercialization had their own new vehicle platform such as Impact and Volt. We know discuss in more detail the prototypes developed, the environmental factors and firm-level factors [34] for each of these five decades. This discussion provides some interpretations for the general patterns observed and a better understanding of the learning process that GM went through.

Vehicles Electrovair Electrovan Military 6 x 6 Stirlec I GM512 Hybrid GM512 Electric AT&T van Electrovette Electrovette II Sunraycer Impact HX3 Electric shuttle EV1 EV1 HEV Hy-wire GMC Sierra Volt

TABLE 1. GM EV PROTOTYPES AND COMMERCIAL LAUNCHES 1964 -2010 Vehicle Prototype or Years Battery Propulsion Platform Category Commercial 1964/66 Silver-zinc BEV - Grid Car Prototype Corvair 1968 FC Van Prototype GMC Handivan 1968 Lead-acid HEV - Gas Truck Prototype Military truck 1968 Lead-acid HEV - Gas Car Prototype Opel Kadett 1969 Lead-acid HEV - Gas Car Prototype New 1969 Lead-acid BEV - Grid Car Prototype New 1979 Lead-acid BEV Grid Van Prototype Standard van 1970s Lead-acid BEV Grid Car Prototype Chevette 1979 Nickel-zinc BEV Grid Car Prototype Chevette 1987 Silver-zinc BEV Solar Race car Prototype New 1990/ 93 Lead-acid BEV Grid Car Prototype New 1991 Lead-acid HEV - Gas Mini-van Prototype New 1993 Lead-acid HEV - Gas Bus Prototype 1996/99 Lead-acid, NiMH BEV Grid Car Commercial Impact HEV Plug-in Diesel/ 1998 NiMH Car Prototype Impact NG 2002 FC Car Prototype New 2004 Lead-acid HEV Gas Pickup Commercial Sierra 2006/10 Li-ion HEV Plug-in E85/ Gas Car Commercial New

1964-1969 The concerns with pollution and air quality in large urban areas in the 60s prompted many developed countries to stimulate R&D programs for electric vehicles ([16], [32]). In the United States, between 1965 and 1966, three bills of law tried to be passed in the Congress with the aim of reducing air pollutions in large urban centers [18]. They all failed, but the U. S. government undertook initiatives to support societal actions in improving air quality. As an example, the U.S. Department of Commerce published a national study that recommended that the traditional vehicles become "clean" [37]. These concerns and incentives of the 60's probably motivated GM to restart the development of the EV technology that was hibernating since the 20s. The first prototype of this effort is the Electrovair (1964) and the second one is the Electrovair II (1966). Both were BEV prototypes using silver-zinc batteries which were produced by Delco Remy and were used in intercontinental nuclear missiles. Despite being costly, they were lighter than leadacid battery and delivered higher power ([32], [6]). The stated development objective was to determine technical feasibility of EV [13]. The learning gained in testing these two prototypes was that the silver-zinc batteries were very expensive and that the duration of a load was too short. The inadequacies of the silver-zinc batteries encouraged a return to the well known lead-acid batteries, used in the 20s by GM, in other EV prototypes in the rest of 60s and 70s. In the same time period GM was developing a hydrogen fuel cell car jointly with Union Carbide Corporation. This prototype, the Electrovan, was unveiled in 1966 and it had a hybrid propulsion system using hydrogen fuel cells and leadacid batteries. The overall size of the propulsion system and fuel cells determined the choice of a GMC Handivan as the test-bed. It was the first prototype vehicle to use such technology among all automakers [32]. The objective was to study the potential problems of using HEV technology based on hydrogen fuel cells. According to Rajashekar [32], the entire system was too expensive and complicated. In 1968 GM ventured into HEV and developed two prototypes: Electric truck for military application and StirLEC I. The Delco Remy Division developed the hybrid military six-wheel truck with lead-acid batteries. Tests demonstrated many advantages in using this technology as adaptability to different types of engines, improved efficiency in fuel consumption, and stable propulsion system under different conditions [32]. This electric truck successfully passed all tests required by military authorities at GMs proving grounds. The GM Research Laboratory developed Stir-LEC I, a prototype hybrid powered by a Stirling engine and lead-acid batteries, using the Opel Kadett as a base. Stirling engine is an external combustion engine; its more efficient than an internal-combustion engine and judged adequate for HEV. The objective of this prototype was to explore the use of a low emission engine and electric drive system in a small car.

Stir-LEC I proved the technical feasibility of a hybrid power train for a limited performance vehicle acceptable for urban driving [32]. In 1969, GM persisted in developing EV prototypes aimed at urban use: the GM512 Electric (BEV) and the GM512 Hybrid (HEV). Different from the Stir-LEC I, these so called microcars had their own and quite unconventional body design. These two passenger cars were very small: 86.3 inches in length and 56 inches in width. As a comparison, Hondas smallest model Fit 2011 (in the USA) has a length of 161.5 inches and a width of 66.7 inches. These microcars were not designed for highway use. According to a quotation from the book "The Complete Book of Electric Vehicles" by Sheldon R. Shacket, 1979, Domus Books, posted in the Internet, these prototypes had technical problems such as: more than one acceleration run every 2.5 miles (4 km) would result in battery depletion. [42]. It was observed that the pure electric version had a faster acceleration than the hybrid version [32]. 1970-1979 There were two oil crises that occurred in 1973 and 1979. Thus, in order to reduce dependence on oil and increase energy security of nations, more significant government incentives for the development of EV technology arose. The oscillations in the prices of fossil fuels had a direct influence in encouraging, or discouraging, the development of electric vehicles. In 1976, the United States Congress passed the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, Public Law 94-413 [8]. Then the Department of Energy (DOE) established a specific program to develop electric cars [22]. At that time, the main question to be answered was: Can EVs do the job in our modern society [8]? In the 70s, GM worked on several versions of a BEV based on Chevette: the Electrovette. These prototypes were equipped with on-board computer (Motorola MC6800 microprocessor) [32]. The program started with the lead-acid batteries and in the late 70s these were substituted by longer life nickel-zinc batteries (Electrovette II). The objective was then to test the usability of nickel-zinc batteries. The data obtained in tests were positive because the batteries demonstrated the safety, reliability and good cost-benefit for the day-to-day use. The main result of this program was a significant amount of experience and capability was developed to effectively evaluate battery technology in a vehicle environment. [32]. In the second oil crisis of 1979, GM even seriously considered bringing Electrovette II to market if the gas price would rise to $2.5 a gallon ($8 a gallon in todays price), but the $2.5 a gallon gas never happened [5]. Another EV project of the 70s was the hybrid gasolinepowered van with lead-acid batteries. The GMC Truck and Coach Division provided, in 1979, 35 of these hybrid vans for the AT&T to test in its daily field operations. At the end of the program, 300,000 miles of testing were accumulated by

these AT&T vans [32]. This seems to be the first large scale beta testing of GM EV by a client since 1964. The learning gained from these AT&T vans was that the driver's habits, the terrain, and the recharging system can affect up to 20% in energy costs. GM also observed that the regenerative braking system offered 12% of energy saving and, as far as batteries are concerned, it was found that they were still very heavy besides using expensive materials and components for vehicles this size. This more details analysis of GM EV technology development activities indicates that the two programs carried out in the 70s had more depth and probably consumed much more resources than those of the 60s. It seems that those of the 60s were more exploratory, and based on these results, GM decided to invest its R&D resources in fewer technological trajectories in the 70s. 1980-1989 When Roger Smith became the CEO of GM in 1981, the company had its first annual loss since the early 1920s. The events that precipitated this crisis were the OPEC oil embargo and the strong inroad that Japanese automakers made in the US market in the 70s. Smith implemented a drastic corporate strategy: a wide-spread reorganization and a revolutionary transition to automation. The idea was to substitute the inefficient American labor with high-tech robotics in order to compete with Japanese car manufacturers. The estimated cost was a staggering $40-45 billion. Under this corporate reorganization Delco Remy was separated into strategic business units (SBU) and the central engineering department was broken apart and distributed into different SBUs. The remaining advanced project personnel were organized as a skunk works and continued the development on electrified propulsion systems. Due to the lack of funding, this group even worked for an electric torpedo, which had a motor similar to EV, for the U. S. Navy [24]. These events in the beginning of the 80s explained the paucity of EV prototypes in this decade. In the words of Suarez, GMs firm-level factors affected the development efforts in EV [34]. The only prototype Sunraycer was actually an unplanned event from the perspective of GM R&D organizations. Roger Smith decided that GM should compete in the First World Solar Challenge to be hold in Australia. GM developed the Sunraycer with the participation of its various divisions and the Aero Vironment, a specialized engineering innovation company. The Sunraycer won the race in 1987 and provided much needed publicity for GM. The success of Sunraycer revived the GMs interest in EV and the development of a prototype called Santana started with the participation of Aero Vironment. This prototype was later renamed as Impact. 1990-1999 In the United States, around 1990, several state and federal authorities have passed regulations to promote electric

vehicle development. Examples are the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment, the 1992 Energy Policy Act, and regulations issued by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Several states have issued Zero Emission Vehicle requirements such as those of California: in order to sell cars in California, large carmakers (including GM) would be required to have at least 2% of its fleet emission free by 1998, 5% by 2001, and 10% by 2003 [28]. Besides regulations, U. S. government, through Department of Energy, provided R&D support to automakers and their suppliers in the development of EV and its subsystems. DOE created the United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) with the participation of the three major automakers in the United States (GM, Ford and Chrysler), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and battery development companies in the country. Furthermore, the "Big Three" automobile manufacturers, and the Department of Energy, as well as a number of vehicle conversion companies were involved in electric vehicle development through the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) ([8], [22]). Under these pressures and incentives, CEO Roger Smith announced, on the morning of April 18, 1990, that GM would mass produce Impact by the mid 90s [11]. In 1993, an improved version of the Impact, the Impact 3, was launched and GM produced 50 units so that 1000 potential customers could test the model [32]. The objective of this beta-testing is to gain inputs from potential customers in order to guide GM in mass producing this EV. In parallel, GM also produced a hybrid van prototype: HX3, based on the propulsion system of Impact. This van can seat five person compared with only two of Impact [26]. GM also developed another HEV in 1993: Delco Remy and Allison Transmission division produced a prototype electric shuttle bus using hybrid technology: gasoline and lead-acid batteries. The tests of this prototype encouraged the development of a commercial version of this segment ([7], [32]). In 1996, the Impact evolved into EV1. EV1 looked very similar to Impact but this new prototype incorporated many improvements based on the learning accumulated by GM. Most importantly, EV1 is the first modern EV designed to satisfy Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). In 1998, the hybrid EV1 HEV prototype cars powered by diesel and natural gas, with nickel-metal hydride batteries (NiMH) were developed [7]. In 1999, GM released a Generation II version of EV1 with lower weight and production costs, and using NiMH batteries. This battery offers a range of 220Km per full charge [8]. GM leased out 800 of EV1 in Phoenix, Tucson, and Los Angeles from 1996 to 2003. Customers leased EV1's on a three-year basis. This is then the first mass-produced BEV in the current wave [27]. In 2003, after California changed zero emission rules, GM took the leased vehicles back and stopped the program.

GM also introduced the S10 Electric pickup around the same time as EV1. Like the EV1, S10 Electric trucks were produced to meet regulatory demands. The technology of this truck is based on a modified version of the EV1 electric drive system. 2000-2010 GM made another bold attempt in FCEV by introducing the prototype of Hy-Wire at the International Auto Show Paris in 2002. Hy-Wire means Hydrogen fuel and drive-byWire technology. The prototype has revolutionary car architecture: a common chassis (called skateboard) for different vehicle bodies (coupe, sedan, minivan, etc.). The key problem with FCEV is still the development of a costly infrastructure. GM has not announced continued R&D efforts in the further development of Hy-Wire [31]. The introduction of Prius, a hybrid EV, by Toyota in 1997 created mounting pressure on GM to compete in the same market segment. GM decided to adopt its HEV technology, developed in the 90s for EVs such as Electric Shuttle and EV1 HEV, and applied to GMC Sierra and other GM vehicles [13]. In 2007, GM introduced the Volt concept at Detroits North American Auto Show. This is another HEV, but the design emphasizes battery rather than ICE and it can recharge its batteries by plugging into electric grid (Plug-in HEV). There is no direct mechanical link between the gas-powered engine and the electrical drive train. Volt is part of GMs EFlex strategy: creating a platform of EV propulsion system that can use different energy sources (diesel in Europe, ethanol in Brazil, and even fuel cell in the future) [31]. The financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent bankruptcy of GM did not affect the pace of Volts development. Besides the emergency loans of $13.4 billion provided by the Bush administration for GM in 2008, the DOEs Vehicle Technologies Program awarded GM $105 million to develop and manufacture advanced batteries for the Volt. Furthermore, the Recovery Act awarded $151.4 million to Volts battery supplier, Compact Power (a subsidiary of LG Chem), to support the production of lithium-ion polymer battery cells [33]. It is important to note that this battery technology was a result of more than ten years of R&D by the Argonne National Laboratory and was licensed to the Korean company. In the face of the strategic importance of battery technologies in EV, GM Chairman Rick Wagnoner announced in 2009 that GM is back in the battery business and is creating a large battery R&D lab in partnership with the University of Michigan [14]. In November of 2010, GM officially launched commercially Volt.

IV. FROM TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY TO CREATING THE MARKET THE BATTLEGROUND OF THE LAST 15 YEARS The concept of dominant design is important to understanding the evolution of technological innovations. In Utterbacks words the dominant product design has features that competitors and innovators must adhere if they hope to command significant market share following [39]. A dominant design is characterized both by a set of core design concepts and that are embodied in components and by a product architecture that defines the ways in which these components are integrated [19]. Utterback [39] suggested that the occurrence of a dominant design may alter the character of innovation and the competition at the firm and the industry level. Winning the battle for the dominant design is desirable because it will enable the firm to collect temporary monopoly rents (premium prices resulting in high profit margins) and sales in advantageous market niches. In this section we intend to explore some aspects of the dynamics of technological trajectories regarding the electric propulsion as a candidate for becoming the dominant design in the car industry, instead of the internal combustion engine one of the most persistent established technologies of todays world. More specifically, we focused in the Phase III (Creating the Market) of Suarezs framework for technological battle. For this study, Phase III begins with the introduction of the first EV into the market in the current wave. Since the mid-1990s the vast majority of the automotive industry has embraced the electric vehicle technology, leading to large development and testing activities in preparation for commercialization in the coming years. In a once mature industry, new propulsion technologies and experimental EV versions are emerging in an era of fermentation. Innovation scholars with an evolutionary economics perspective have highlighted that market incumbents and emergent firms have distinct roles to play in the transformation of industries towards sustainable development. In the early stages of an industrys change, the new entrants are keen to see their market grow; nonetheless they are often keeping that growth limited. Being aware that incumbents might easily outspend them in product development and distribution capabilities, they decide to enter the market niche, preferring to keep their niche at a small and exclusive size that is not attracting undue interest from traditional competitors. On the other hand, market incumbents restricted by their existing assets, which reflect past investments, often react to pressure, making the business less likely that they engage in these types of innovation entrepreneurship. However, given their superior market power and investment capabilities, incumbents can play catch-up quickly once they decide to become fast followers. A vision of the manufacturers entering this EV market incumbent carmakers and new entrant firms , as well as the

propulsion system technology and the architectural category of the electric vehicle launching models, in the last fifteen year (1995 2010), offer an excellent chance to study the evolution of such technological innovation ex ante. A. Methodology In this part of the article we intend to explore the current era of intense technical experimentation in the automotive industry by looking the waves of entering and leaving firms with a great diversity of electric vehicle versions coming to the market. To carry out the analysis, we used different sources to compile data on participating firms and new product releases regarding hybrid and all-electric passenger cars. Concerning firm participation, a list of electric car manufactures operating in the world was made, indicating the entry and the exit time for each firm; the population density of this industry year by year was compiles from these data. Regarding product releases, we searched information on which vehicle manufacturers offer HEV, PHEV and BEV to the market, when new products are launched or planned to be launched. For those firms where data were available, we include technical characteristics of the electric propulsion system, the vehicle category and performance. We mainly used consolidated data from reports of international organizations, companies websites, trade journals and internet sources as indicated in the text, complemented by special reports and business magazine. B. Results Utterback [38] and other authors such as Anderson and Tushman [4] have shown that the emergence of a dominant design influences the structure of the industry. Before the dominant design there is an influx of entrants into the

industry, and after the emergence there is the consolidation of the industry. In Fig. 1 we compare the data collected in this study for the current wave of EV with data presented by other authors for the first wave, and the total number of firms in the automobile industry in the United States [38]. The chart plots together the evolution of the number of EVs manufacturing firms from 1893 to 1956 (first wave [28]) and between 1995 and 2010 (current wave), as well as participant carmakers in the U.S. auto industry during the period 1894-1962 [38]. Fig. 1 shows that, in the first wave of EV, the number of firms peaked in 1901 and decreased sharply after 1915. This decline is consistent with the emergence of the dominant design in the U. S. automobile industry around 1920 [38]. We collected data on EV manufacturers worldwide from 1995 onward and Fig. 1 shows a marked jump after 2005 and the trend is still upward. Therefore we can conclude that the dominant design probably has not emerged. Although we do not have data between 60s and 00s, it is quite evident that the sharp increase in EV manufacturers is outpacing the total number of conventional ICE vehicles assemblers. In accordance to Anderson and Tushman [4], this suggests strongly that a technological discontinuity occurred and the automobile industry is in an era of ferment; or in the framework of Suarez [34], the automobile industry is probably in the phase of Creating the Market. The rest of this section will provide more details data collected about the nature of entrants and the EV technologies involved in the passenger car segment. The selection of this relevant segment of the auto industry is to simplify our analyses. These data enable another level of analysis which can shed light on the possible scenarios for passenger EV in the near future.

80

Number of Firms

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Auto US EV World
(Frery, 2000) (Utterback, 1987; Abernathy, 1978)

EV World
(authors, 2011)

1 5 7 11 15 17 21 23 57 61 1890 3 1900 9191013 1920 191930 25 27 29 1950 35 37 39 1970 45 47 49 1990 55200059 2010 1940 31 33 1960 41 43 1980 51 53

Fig. 1 Number of firms in the automobile industry. Sources: Frery (2000 apud Midler and Beaume, 2008); Utterback (1987); Abernathy (1978); Feeney (2009); Hacker, et al. (2009); Alternatives Fuels (2011); All Electric Vehicles (2011)

The curve of cumulative number of active firms in the electric passenger car industry, at any given year, during the period 1995-2010, is shown in Fig. 2, as well as the number of entries and exits (including mergers and failures), year by year. The latest wave of enthusiasm for electric cars began slowly in the mid-90s and the number of participant firms remained quite constant with no more than 10 carmakers until 2002. A wave of exits that began in 1998, besides the low number of entries from 1999 to 2003, caused a decrease of participation to a minimum of six firms. After that, the EV industry experienced a rapid acceleration: from 2004 to 2010, 41 firms entered the sector and none left. In late 2010, 47 manufacturers of electric cars around the world were competing in this segment of the automotive industry. To better understand the movement of entries and exits the Fig. 3 was elaborated. We compiled firms with hybrid models (HEV and PHEV) and those manufacturers of allelectric cars (BEV), furthermore, in this last segment, we distinguished the incumbents and the new entrant firms. By incumbents we mean established automakers such as GM (Fig. 3). 50

Automotive hybrid technology became widespread beginning in the late 1990s. The first mass-produced HEV was the Toyota Prius model, launched in Japan in 1997, and followed by the Honda HEV Insight model, launched in 1999. As the Fig. 3 shows, only in the late 2000s others automakers released hybrids; all of them are incumbent companies: the big three US automakers (GM, Ford, Chrysler), as well as the European groups (Volkswagen, Daimler, BMW, Porsche, Peugeot-Citroen PSA) and the Asian Nissan, Hyundai, Mazda, Mitsubishi. Until 2010, around fifty hybrid models (passenger cars, sport utility vehicles and pick-up trucks) have been introduced in world market, while some of the biggest automakers offer HEV as option on all models. The total cumulative world sales of hybrid vehicles reached in 2010 approximately 3.7 million units; the auto manufacturers Toyota and Honda have been responsible for the vast majority of HEV sales to date. However, hybrids have always been a niche market, capturing less than one percent of the world passenger vehicle market through the first decade of the 21st century.

Number of Firms

40 30 20 10 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1995 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 13 14 09 2010 07 08 15 16

nr. of entries

Srie1

nr. of exits Srie2

nr. of operating firms

Srie3

Fig. 2 Number of firms in the electric passenger cars industry. Sources: Feeney and Adams (2009); Hacker et al. (2009); Conceptcarz (2011); Alternatives Fuels (2011); All Electric Vehicles (2011)

50

Number of Firms

40 30 20 10 0
1995 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 2010 BEV BEV Srie1 Srie2 Srie3 Srie4 HEV PHEV

incumbents new entrants Fig. 3 Number of firms in the electric passenger cars industry. Sources: Feeney and Adams (2009); Hacker, Harthan, Mattes and Zimmer. (2009); Conceptcarz (2011); Alternatives Fuels (2011); All Electric Vehicles (2011)

Regarding firms entering the plug-in hybrid market, only in 2008, the manufacturer BYD Automobile (which is owned by China's largest mobile phone battery maker) began selling its F3DM plug-in hybrid model, becoming the first PHEV series production sold in the world Fig. 3. In period 20092010 three more firms jointed the market niche: the incumbent GM and two start-ups. The Fig. 3 also shows the evolution of participation of incumbents and new entrants in the segment of all-electric passenger cars (BEV). As one can observe from the figure, during the period 2002-2008 (after the GM EV1 experience), while the major established car companies were discontinuing their electric car programs, at least slowing the development timelines, a significant number of entrepreneurs have taken the bold decision of manufacturing mainstream highway-speed electric vehicles. Tesla Motors, a start-up Silicon Valley-based electric carmaker founded in 2003, is considered a pioneer in that category. As demand and production grow, as more applications are found for the innovation, many new firms entered into the market with variations of the product. Indeed, to minimize the costs and complexities involved in developing a highwayspeed passenger cars, many new carmakers have entered in new market segments, launching small low-speed electric cars (in the U.S., top speed limited to 40 km/h does not require certification for highway crash testing), electric motorcycle and three wheels BEVs (so it can be legally classified as a motorcycle). Those strategies had the effect of lowering the barriers to entry and, as a result, in 2010 the new entrant firms were the absolute players in all BEV categories low and high-speed car, commercial vehicle, motorcycle, 3-wheels and bicycle , even leading the highspeed electric car market (Fig. 4). This figure shows the number of BEV models, available for sale in 2010, by categories and by firm types established automakers, new entrants, as well as new brands (a mix of new industry joint ventures and start-up companies). The electric cars incumbents and new manufacturers are showing an early preference for small vehicle category, recognizing that BEV attributes are better-suited to compact, urban-commuter cars rather than larger multi-purpose vehicles. By focusing on specific market segmentation consumers driving around town, daily commuting or intercity travel carmakers can match a vehicles energy storage requirements to a consumers particular needs and thus design more economic vehicles. Depending on how consumers use their vehicles, the optimal battery size requirements (and thus upfront capital costs) and operating economics can vary quite substantially.

50 40 30 20 10 0 3 26 21 2 24 6 2 8 0 5 1
NEW-ENTRANTS

23

INCUMBENTS

Fig. 4 BEV: selection of available for sale and announced models. Sources: Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs dAutomobiles (2011); Feeney and Adams (2009); Hacker, Harthan, Mattes and Zimmer (2009); Clemenger (2008); Conceptcarz (2011); Alternatives Fuels (2011); All Electric Vehicles (2011)

However, over the longer term, as vehicle prices fall, the vehicle range increases and more charging infrastructure become available, owners of larger vehicles and vehicles that travel large distances tend to purchase a higher proportion of EVs. This is due to the fact that operating costs are more important for these vehicle owners [21]. In a recent study, Hockerts and Wstenhagen [20] sustain that, while incumbents tend to lag behind start-ups concerning the primary innovation, they do nonetheless have a tendency to invest in more encompassing sustainability management systems, addressing multiple environmental and social issues where new entrants focuses on only a few issues. The number of released BEV prototypes increased more than five times in a short period of two years, from 11 car models in 2008 to 61 in 2010. Despite the impressive performance of new entrants, in 2010 the established companies took the lead in number of electric car prototypes launches, as shown in Fig. 5. As larger numbers of firms entered the arena, broadening the range of experimentation and the definition of the product technology, one can expect greater innovation with correspondingly greater technology progress and productivity advance, and may be more importantly, the emergence of a clear front-runner that will signal the beginning of the Decisive Battle for technological dominance, Phase IV in Suarezs framework [34].

BEV: number of launch & prototype models by years

NEW-ENTRANTS INCUMBENTS

61

23
27 11

14 13

38

1995 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 2010
Fig. 5 BEV: number of launch and prototype passenger cars models by years. Sources: Feeney and Adams (2009); Hacker, Harthan, Mattes and Zimmer (2009); Conceptcarz (2011); Alternatives Fuels (2011); All Electric Vehicles (2011)

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This paper employs the framework proposed by Suarez [34], the concept and implications of dominant design [39] to analyze the battle for technological dominance in the current wave of EV launches. The data collected, since 1995, shows that the number of firms entering the EV market has increased greatly from 2005 onward and probably will climb further. In 2010, this number is 47 firms. Compared with the 22 firms in the peak of world EV industry in the first wave [28], this is quite an impressive influx of companies. These firms offer a variety of EV technologies (BEV, HEV and PHEV) and vehicle categories (high-speed car, low-speed car, 3-wheels, etc.). None of these EVs has occupied significant market participation. Toyotas Prius and other hybrids have captured less than one percent of the world passenger vehicle market. These set of results indicates that dominant design has not emerged in EV [38] and no clear front-runner has materialized, therefore our conclusion is that this industrial segment is still in the Creating the Market Phase [34]. We observe that, by classifying EV firms into two groups: incumbents and new-entrants in automobile industry, incumbents dominate HEV and PHEV models and entrants concentrate in BEV. This fact is explained by the technological complexity involved in designing and producing HEV. Furthermore, entrants are highly represented in vehicle categories other than the conventional high-speed car segment. In other words, entrants prefer to compete in market niches so to avoid direct confrontation with incumbents. This strategy of entrants can create more variety in EV offering and therefore more probe and learn from the market [25]. In the long run, depending on the evolutions of technology and environmental factors [34], some of these niches may expand and therefore reshape the EV industry as a whole.

The launches of Volt and Leaf, backed by incumbents GM and Renault / Nissan, and supported by several governments, indicate that strong candidates for the frontrunner are surfacing. We would expect then the start of the decisive battle as suggested by Suarez [34]. In analyzing the phase of Creating the Market in EV in this study, we realize that the framework of technology battle proposed by Suarez [34] can be improved by considering explicitly the following aspects. First, the framework should incorporate the competition among alternative technologies such as BEV, HEV and even FCEV in our study. In our case, each of these technologies enters into the Creating the Market phase at different year. What is the chance of a late comer becoming a front-runner? Second, in the case of EV, we have incumbents and new-entrants in the automobile industry. What are the roles of the incumbents (or of the entrants) in a technological battle? In order to investigate the Phases I and II of technological battle from the perspective of a participating firm, we analyzed the experience of the incumbent GM in EV in the last 50 years. The framework proposed by Suarez [34] highlights some factors which are most relevant at the firm level and at the level of the environment. It was observed through the data collected that, in terms of environmental protection, the regulatory interventions had significant relevance throughout the process. Government involvement has had a direct relationship with the actions taken by GM in the development of electric vehicle technology over the five decades studied. It was also found that, at the firm level, the probe and learn process, theory proposed by Lynn, Morone and Paulson [25], was a present and relevant process in the observable phases of the technological battle. The learning gained through the prototypes generated by the various divisions of GM, offered information that could be used in different models, testing different architectures over time.

There is however a key difference between the probe and learn process described by Lynn, Morone and Paulson [25] and our study of GM. They describe a process in which a company use a prototype to probe the market, learn from the experience and so another cycle of probe and learn can be realized. In the study of EV in GM, we noticed that in the first 30 years, GM only probed the technology, i.e., tested different EV technologies and vehicle configurations, and learned from the experience and restart the cycle. In the current wave, GM only made the first probing of the market in 1996, launching EV1, after approximately 13 technological probes. After another series of technological probes, GM made the second probe of the market ten years later with the Volt. This analysis of GMs experience with EV suggested that these two types of probe and learn are related: in order to probe and learn from the market, a company needs to first probe the technology in order to improve it. In other words, the technological probe and learn is a necessary condition for market probe and learn. This relationship between these probe and learn processes can be incorporated into the Suarezs framework of technological battles. Fig. 6 is an abstract depiction of these probe and learn processes within Suarezs framework for the GM case. In the 70s and 80s, technological probes penetrated deeper into the Phase II compared with those probes in the 60s. Due to space limitation, Fig. 6 does not show all GM prototypes developed in the last 50 years, but it shows the two market launches: EV1 and Volt.

The importance of the probe and learn process for GM may suggest an adaptation in the framework proposed by Suarez [34]: include such learning process as the most influential factor in all phases of the technological battle. Furthermore, the technological probe and learns in GM occurred in different ways over time. In the 60s, the challenges to be overcome were related to the attempts to find the best combinations of technologies and architectures. This was a more exploratory probe and learns. Data obtained from the technological probe and learns of the 60s provided information to guide the development of EV prototypes in the 70s. We note that there were fewer but deeper probes in this decade, which implies that GM was doing more detailed engineering development along a selected technological trajectory. In the 80s, firm level factors such re-organization and radical factory automation reduced drastically R&D activities in EV. Fortunately, an unexpected event prompted GM to develop the Sunraycer and won an international solar powered car race. In the 90s the probes were centered on production prototypes, on preparations for EV manufacturing and probing the potential customers through beta-tests. The commercial launch of the HEV passenger car Volt occurred in 2010 and the feedback of the market is uncertain. It may become the front-runner in technological battle, but it is also possible that it only provides more learning for GM, similarly to what happened with the EV1.

Fig. 6 Integration of the probe and learning in technological battles.

REFERENCES
[1] [2] [3] Abernathy, W. J. The Productivity Dilemma: roadblock to innovation in the automobile industry, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978. 267 p. All Electric Vehicles. My Search for the Perfect Electric Car (or hybrid, scooter, bicycle, or motorcycle!!), Retrieved 2/2/2011 World Wide Web, http://www.all-electric-vehicles.com Alternatives Fuels. Types of Vehicles, Retrieved 2/2/2011 World Wide Web, http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/vehicles/Vehicles_More_Choices.h tm Anderson, P.; Tushman, M; Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change, Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 35, pp. 604-633, 1990. Berisa, J.; GM's long road back to electric cars: Electrovette, Retrieved 2/15/2011 World Wide Web, http://money.cnn.com/galleries /2008/autos/0809/gallery.gm_electric_cars/5.html Bowman, B.; 1966 Electrovair II Concept. Generations of GM History, Retrieved 2/15/2011 World Wide Web, http://history. gmheritagecenter.com/wiki/index.php/1966_Electrovair_II_Concept Bradley, T. H.; Frank, A. A.; Design, demonstrations and sustainability impact assessments for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, Sustainable and Renewable Energy Review, vol. 13, pp. 115-128, 2009. Chan, C. C.; The state of the art of electric and hybrid vehicles. Proceedings IEEE, vol. 90, n 2, Feb. 2002. Clemenger, S.; The world of electric vehicles: winter 2008 2009 review, EV World Publication ,Dec.2008. Conceptcarz., Current Concepts and Past Concepts, Retrieved 2/2/2011 World Wide Web, http://www.conceptcarz.com/view/concepts.aspx Cone, M.; GM and the juicemobile : to satisfy California's tough antismog laws, General Motors jumped on the electric-car bandwagon. But can the wounded giant follow through with a car we'll want to buy? Los Angeles Time, June, 1992. Feeney, K; Adams, D.; Economic viability of electric vehicles, Australia: AECOM Report, Sept. 2009. General Motors. GM's long road back to electric cars: Electrovair II. Retrieved 2/15/2011 World Wide Web, http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/autos/0809/gallery.gm_electric_ca rs/3.html Gershman, D.; General Motors celebrate partnership to create electric car batteries, Retrieved 2/15/2011 World Wide Web, http://www.mlive.com/news/annarbor/index.ssf/2009/02/university_of_michigan_general.html GM's Electric Vehicles.; Through the Years Why the Volt is an Overnight Sensation Nearly 50 Years in the Making Retrieved 2/15/2011 World Wide Web, http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/1011_gm_electric_vehi cles_through_the_years/printer_friendly.html Goldemberg, C.; Lebensztajn, L.; Pellini, E.; A evoluo do carro eltrico Retrieved 11/16/2010 World Wide Web, http://www.lps.usp.br/lps/arquivos/conteudo/grad/dwnld/CarroEletrico2 005.pdf Hacker, F.; Harthan, R.; Matthes, F.; Zimmer, W. Environmental impacts and impact on the electricity market of a large scale introduction of electric cars in Europe critical review. The European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change (ETC/ACC) Technical Paper 2009/4, European Environmental Agency, July 2009. Hamilton, W. Electric automobiles. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980. Henderson, R.; Clark, K.; Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 35, pp.9-30, Mar. 1990.

[4] [5] [6] [7]

[8] [9] [10] [11]

[12] [13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18] [19]

[20] Hockerts, K.; Wstenhagen, R.; Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids: theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Center for Corporate Social Responsibility (CBS). Working Paper Series n 01-2009, 2nd edition, Denmark, 2009. [21] Hodson, N.; Newman, J.; A new segmentation for electric vehicles. McKinsey Quarterly, Nov. 2009. [22] Hoyer, K. G.; The history of alternative fuels in transportation: the case of electric and hybrid cars. Utilities Policy, vol. 16, pp.63-71, 2007. [23] International Energy Agency (IEA). Technology Roadmap: electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD Report, 2009. [24] International Energy. The "Car That Could" Did! Retrieved 02/15/2011 World Wide Web, http://www.intlenergy.com/33/1621.html [25] Lynn, G. S.; Morone, J. G.; Paulson, A. S. Marketing and discontinuous innovation: the probe and learn process, California Management Review, vol 38, n3, pp.8-37, 1996. [26] Mateja, J. GM takes another clean route with plans for a dual-fuel Van. Chicago Tribune, Jan. 08, 1991. [27] Maynard, M. G.M.s latest great green hope is a tall order. The New York Times, p. A-1, Nov. 22, 2008. [28] Midler, C.; Beaume, R. From technology competition to reinventing individual mobility for a sustainable future: challenges for new design strategies for electric vehicle. 16th Gerpisa International Conference, Turin, Italy, June 2008. [29] Organization for Economic Cooperation And Development; World Energy Outlook Genve: OECD, 2009. (The International Energy Agency Report). [30] Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs dAutomobiles (OICA). 2009 production statistics. Retrieved 1/15/2011 World Wide Web, http://www.oica.net [31] Perry, T. S. Loser General Motors on the hy-wire gm is betting a billion that its hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will be ready for prime time by 2010. IEEE spectrum, Jan. 2004. [32] Rajashekara, K.History of electric vehicles in General Motors. IEEE Transactions on industry applications, vol 30, n4, pp.897-904, 1994. [33] Smith, D. A. Chevy Volt Electrifies DOE Headquarters. Retrieved 2/15/2011 World Wide Web, http://blog.energy.gov/blog/2010/12/09/chevy-volt-electrifies-doeheadquarters [34] Suarez, F. F. Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework, Research Policy, vol. 33, pp. 271-286, 2004. [35] Taminiau, Y. Beyond known uncertainties: interventions at the fuelengine interface. Research Policy, vol. 35, pp. 247-265, 2006. [36] Taylor, M. Owners charged up over electric cars, but manufacturers have pulled the plug. San Francisco Chronicle, pp. A-1, April 24 2005. [37] U.S. Department of Commerce. The automobile and air pollution: A program for progress. Report of the panel on electrically powered vehicles to the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C, 1967. [38] Utterback, J. M. Innovation and industrial evolution in manufacturing industries. National Academy Press, Washington, USA, 1987. [39] Utterback, J. M. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. 2nd edition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1994. 288p. [40] Utterback, J. M.; Suarez, F. F. Innovation, competition and industry structure. Research Policy, vol. 22, n. 1, pp. 1-21, Feb. 1993. [41] Welch, D.; Clothier, M. The combustion engine gets downsized: Ecomotors promises 50 percent better mileage at a low cost. Bloomberg Business Week Magazine, Aug. 2, 2010. [42] General Motors, Who Says GM Was Late To The Hybrid Game? Retrieved 2/15/2011 World Wide Web, http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/501630-post37.html