Key Takeaways

India’s fast-growing EV market is seeing frantic activity with many launches, especially in the two-wheeler segment (>200 players in the segment). This is leading to rushed launches, which are actually resulting in quality issues and customer dissatisfaction. This article explains why newer OEMs struggle with synchronisation across development, manufacturing, service, and dealer networks and outlines a disciplined approach for a more reliable approach to new launches.

The launch dilemma in India’s e-mobility race: First-mover advantage or hidden trap?

<p>India's e-mobility revolution has set off a gold rush, drawing in legacy OEMs and nimble start-ups alike. Nowhere is this more visible than in the two-wheeler EV space, which boasts >200 players, each vying for an early foothold. But in this race to launch, many are discovering that being first is not the same as being ready.<br>Despite the urgency, most EV launches in India have either been delayed or plagued by post-launch issues. Long and uncertain wait times for customers, poor after-sales service, and product recalls have become distressingly common. These issues disproportionately affect newer entrants, while traditional ICE players seem better prepared. This begs a critical question:</p><h6> </h6><h6><span style="color:hsl(328,79%,28%);">Why are new players unable to learn from the playbooks of established OEMs, or even from their own past mistakes?</span></h6><p><span style="color:hsl(0,0%,0%);">Most internal combustion engine OEMs have gone through their learning cycles and now have enough guardrails embedded in their DNA to manage the complexities of launching new platforms. New players, on the other hand, often comprise a handful of experienced individuals from the auto industry, but they are yet to fully grasp the complexity of what they are undertaking.</span></p><p> </p><h3><span style="color:hsl(0,0%,0%);"><strong>The criticality of synchronisation</strong></span></h3><p>A successful vehicle launch is not just about product readiness. It requires tight alignment across multiple fronts: product development, scale-ups, service readiness, and spare parts supply. Misalignment between these areas can have serious consequences.</p><p>Booking vehicles without inventory leads to long delays. Expanding the dealer network without ensuring spare parts availability stretches service turnaround times. Opening showrooms without trained staff results in poor customer engagement and lost bookings. Each of these missteps erodes customer trust and brand equity.</p><p>In most newbie OEMs, each of these streams-product development, supply chain, and dealer readiness, is treated as an independent project, typically managed by different functions. The only coordination mechanism is a shared launch date. This approach assumes alignment will happen naturally, but more often, it results in unmanaged variability and unpredictable delays.</p><p> </p><h3><strong>Product development: The first trap</strong></h3><h4>The misappeal of the Scrum approach</h4><p>Many new-age OEMs, especially startups and tech-driven firms, have adopted agile methodologies like Scrum. The appeal lies in its promise of quick iterations and short feedback loops. The core philosophy of Agile is to deliver a product that is 'good enough' and to keep refining it over time. This works reasonably well for embedded systems, where one can afford to address bugs post-launch through over-the-air updates. However, an EV is not just a software platform, it is a tightly integrated product that combines embedded systems with significant mechanical systems. Unlike software, the physical elements of an EV cannot be left with known issues to be fixed later. Mechanical systems require rigorous upfront validation, including endurance testing, component life testing, and integration trials. Because of the prevailing mindset of ‘let's correct it later,’ these critical checks are often compromised when deadlines come under pressure. Scrum also doesn't adequately support the embedded systems portion of the project because it assumes dedicated, stable teams—a condition rarely met in automotive R&D environments. In practice, key specialists are spread across multiple programs and sprints. As a result, sprint cycles go incomplete, and decision-making suffers due to the unavailability of subject-matter experts.</p><p> </p><h3><strong>Variant explosion and scope creep</strong></h3><p>As technologies evolve and competition intensifies, OEMs frequently add features, configurations, and models mid-stream. This leads to rework across engineering, sourcing, and testing. With multiple platforms being developed in parallel, R&D capacity becomes overstretched. Suppliers also fall behind. Alpha and Beta builds are created using prototype tooling. Validation cycles are compressed or skipped altogether.</p><p>Uncontrolled load on NPD teams, frequent scope changes in running projects, and the application of software project management approaches all contribute to system congestion and incomplete work. These factors not only lead to undesirable waiting times and rework but also make delays inevitable and highly unpredictable.</p><p> </p><h3><strong>Scaling up: The second trap</strong></h3><p>Even after overcoming development hurdles, scaling up production presents a significant challenge. Transitioning from pilot builds to full-scale manufacturing is rarely smooth.</p><p>At output levels of even 200–300 vehicles per shift, quality issues persist. Yet, under pressure to show numbers, bookings are often opened prematurely. When demand exceeds installed capacity, OEMs rush to expand production. This puts immense pressure on manufacturing and sourcing. Alternate suppliers are hastily onboarded, pulling R&D teams back into validation activities and away from future development.</p><p>The result is a firefighting mode of operation. Output increases, but defect rates rise. Quality suffers, and the launch comes under pressure. This is how customers suffer from delayed vehicle deliveries or worse end up buying vehicles which have quality issues.</p><p> </p><h3><strong>Spare parts project: The silent crisis</strong></h3><p>As new models move through development, supply chain teams are expected to ensure supplier readiness, finalise tooling, validate components, and secure after-sales stock. While structured tools like APQP and PPAP exist, timelines often slip.</p><p>What does not help is the a problem of design instability during the development cycle, which keeps the supply chain in flux. Engineering change requests remain open late into the cycle, preventing the Bill of Materials (BOM) from stabilising.</p><p>Delays in part releases, tooling issues, and unresolved testing results create bottlenecks. Under pressure, in some cases, suppliers are asked to deliver parts using alternative tools and processes, while in others, inventory levels can't be locked, and warehouse planning becomes impossible. Launch readiness collapses.</p><p>When new vehicles finally reach the market, spare part inventories are inadequate. Service centres lack replacements, customers face long waits for simple repairs and dealers’ confidence diminishes.</p><p> </p><h3><strong>Dealer readiness: The visible gap</strong></h3><p>Dealer readiness is the most visible aspect of a launch, yet often the least prepared. Building an EV-capable dealership network is not a copy-paste of ICE strategies. EV dealerships require significant investments in charging bays, diagnostic tools, and specialised training.</p><p>Coordination issues between sales, marketing, and service eventually lead to dealers being on-boarded without adequate infrastructure. Marketing activates campaigns in areas where service teams are not yet present. Training programs for EV servicing-covering battery management, software integration, and safety protocols, are conducted too late. The result is a fractured experience.</p><p>In some cases, feedback from dealers during early product showcases is ignored or delayed, leading to further rework. By the time vehicles arrive at showrooms, staff are under-prepared, service tools are missing, and customer support is patchy. Smaller towns face additional challenges, as dealers hesitate to invest due to unclear ROI and low footfall.</p><p> </p><h3><strong>What's the way out?</strong></h3><p>The real issue is trying to do too many things with limited capacity, which results in desynchronisation across various projects. Eventually, business pressure overtakes the need to follow the rigour of NPD program management. What is required are following the below mentioned steps to ensure tight discipline in execution.</p><ul style="list-style-type:disc;"><li><strong>Step 1: Throttle the R&D pipeline</strong><br>OEMs must align their product ambitions with their actual execution capacity. The focus should shift to fewer models with clearer deliverables. Controlling variants and limiting scope creep is critical. More importantly, OEMs should prioritise finishing existing projects over starting new ones. Maintaining a fixed WIP of projects ensures better flow, minimises resource contention, and keeps development timelines under control.</li><li><strong>Step 2: Enforcing discipline around stage gates</strong><br>Concept, Alpha and Beta reviews should be non-negotiable. These gates are not mere paperwork exercises but vital coordination checkpoints. Static and dynamic dealer clinics should be integrated into these stages to capture feedback, build alignment, and prepare the network.</li><li><strong>Step 3: Launch phasing</strong><br>If service, supply chain, or dealer readiness is lacking in some regions, stagger the launch. Begin in markets where the ecosystem is ready. Expand only when readiness is confirmed across all functions. Good companies ensure dealers in a restricted launch area earn the desired ROI and are able to manage service load before they open newer geographies.</li></ul><p>Ultimately, program governance must evolve. Launches should be managed as integrated programs with real-time visibility across all streams. Status dashboards alone are insufficient. What's needed is high-frequency interventions to resolve issues, while developing the ability to shift tactics dynamically, with the sole purpose of maintaining the effectiveness of a synchronised launch. This implies taking hard decisions to delay intermediate deadlines for better effectiveness of the overall processes.</p><p>Yes, the suggested approach may appear slower. It might even seem risky in a competitive market. But durability is a better strategy than speed. In the e-mobility space, credibility is rare. And it is earned not by being first but by being ready.</p><p>The real question is no longer who launches first. It's who endures. This is already seen in the market shares, the legacy OEM entrants who know how to play the game are slowly eating up the market shares of the newbies.</p>

Download PDF

India’s booming EV market especially two-wheelers is seeing rushed launches that lead to quality issues and delays. This article explains why OEMs struggle with synchronisation and outlines a disciplined roadmap for reliable EV launches.