Five dimensions
Product
An electric car works only if it can cover the journeys its owner cannot change.
What changed
from vehicle to usable journey
How it worked
Once the vehicle worked, charging became part of the product.
Three markets · Six company strategies · 2008 to 2026
THE ELECTROMOBILITY RESHUFFLE
How electric-vehicle capabilities reshaped the product, moved constraints across the value chain, expanded industry boundaries and changed where value and control could accumulate.
Automakers had to manage dependencies that sat outside their traditional product and operating boundaries.
What the electric journey depends on
Five dimensions
The electromobility reshuffle changed five parts of the industry at once
It changed the product being delivered, the binding constraint, the industry architecture, the market conditions and the distribution of value and control.
Product, supply, ecosystem and market-entry decisions could no longer be managed separately.
Select a dimension to read its record
One reshuffle
Five dimensions
Five dimensions
Constraints
A constraint can move, return in another form, become routine or be solved only for one segment.
What changed
the bottleneck moved across the system
How it worked
Once the vehicle worked, charging became part of the product.
Once charging became part of the offer, carmakers had to decide which assets and capabilities to own.
Five dimensions
Architecture
Carmakers retained control by specifying, integrating and taking responsibility for the complete vehicle.
What changed
new components entered, but carmakers retained integration
How it worked
Once charging became part of the offer, carmakers had to decide which assets and capabilities to own.
Market-access rules, housing, cell production and vehicle use shape the field before a producer chooses a strategy. A carmaker can adapt to these conditions but cannot remove them on its own.
Five dimensions
Markets
National rules and institutions can make the same vehicle face a different market constraint.
What changed
rules, resources and capabilities produced different markets
How it worked
Market-access rules, housing, cell production and vehicle use shape the field before a producer chooses a strategy. A carmaker can adapt to these conditions but cannot remove them on its own.
Value and control also moved separately: CATL earned strong profit while carmakers retained responsibility for the finished vehicle.
Five dimensions
Value and control
Battery makers earned strong profits without taking control of vehicle design and integration.
What changed
profit, control and risk moved separately
How it worked
Value and control also moved separately: CATL earned strong profit while carmakers retained responsibility for the finished vehicle.
Moving constraints
The binding constraint moved as the industry developed
Battery cost constrained early adoption. Charging then constrained journey coverage. Cell availability later constrained production. Financing constrained transactions, while grid lead times constrained fleet deployment.
Investment based on yesterday's bottleneck could arrive after the constraint had moved elsewhere.
Select an episode to read its record
200820122016202020242026
Vehicle and battery
Charging
Materials and supply
Software and integration
Transaction and finance
Power and grid
The constraint that was binding US passenger: what bound next
US passengerChina passengerDepot fleets
The three cases are compared, not combined into one global sequence.
Moving constraints
Moving constraints · US passenger · 2008–2012
Cell cost
From 2008 to 2012, battery cells cost too much for a mass-market electric car.
How it worked
Carmakers could simplify the powertrain, but they could not reach a price ordinary buyers would pay.
Carmaker and supplier negotiate cost
Battery cells constrained the industry twice for different reasons. First, high cost made vehicles too expensive. During the early-2020s shortage, carmakers could not obtain enough cells for planned production.
Moving constraints · US passenger · 2012–2016
Route coverage
A household could still reject it because one necessary long trip depended on public charging.
How it worked
Carmakers had never supplied fuel. Utilities delivered electricity to a meter, property owners controlled parking and public authorities controlled streets. None was responsible for making electric journeys possible across homes, cities and motorways.
Governments, carmakers and charging companies built separate networks because nobody was responsible for charging everywhere.
Moving constraints · US passenger · 2017–2020
No single fix
US electric-car sales faced three constraints at once: expensive cells, the cost of dedicated platforms and uneven charging access.
How it worked
No reliable comparison shows which mattered most.
Carmakers had to commit billions without knowing whether any single investment would unlock demand.
Battery cells constrained the industry twice for different reasons. First, high cost made vehicles too expensive. During the early-2020s shortage, carmakers could not obtain enough cells for planned production.
Moving constraints · US passenger · 2021–2024
Cell availability and allocation
Cell supply replaced cell cost, and a shortage is settled by whoever holds the allocation.
What changed
Carmakers could not build the volumes their programmes assumed, because the cells were committed elsewhere.
How it worked
Cell production runs on multi-year plant schedules and long mineral contracts, so the constraint stopped being the price of a cell and became who had already been promised one.
The cell producer holding the allocation, and the legislature that wrote the sourcing rules the allocation had to satisfy.
In practice
Producers integrated backwards or signed long alliances rather than buying cells on a market. General Motors told analysts the production credits were the difference between eight percent margins on electric vehicles and two to three percent without them.
Why it matters
Profit moved to the cell layer, and unevenly. CATL's margin rose from 11.4 percent in 2023 to 15.5 percent in 2024 on roughly 32 percent of global battery demand, while Samsung SDI and LG Energy Solution both fell to 2.2 percent.
Control did not move. Battery makers captured measured value without taking responsibility for the finished vehicle.
Battery cells constrained the industry twice for different reasons. First, high cost made vehicles too expensive. During the early-2020s shortage, carmakers could not obtain enough cells for planned production.
Moving constraints · US passenger · 2022–2026
Residual values and lease terms
Sales fell with no loss of technical capability, because the financing structure carrying them changed.
What changed
At the point of sale. Electric cars that worked as well as they had the year before stopped clearing at the monthly payment buyers would accept.
How it worked
Leases written in 2022 and 2023 assumed the cars would be worth 50 percent of their price on return. The reality is nearer 35 to 40 percent, and the gap lands on whoever wrote the forecast.
The finance arms that write the residual, and the legislature that built the leasing channel with a purchase credit and then removed it.
In practice
Finance arms took the loss and sent more vehicles to auction, where wholesale prices were attractive to dealers who read their local market correctly.
Why it matters
Profit moved, and it moved backwards along the chain: away from the finance arm that wrote the forecast, toward the dealer buying the returned car at auction.
Moving constraints · China passenger · 2020–2026
Cell localisation and supplier qualification
The vehicle became ineligible because of its battery.
How it worked
China had abundant cell production. A carmaker could still lose market access if its battery did not satisfy localisation and supplier requirements. The constrained object was the battery, but the decision sat with the regulator.
The regulator that set the rule controlled the decision, while the carmaker could respond by changing suppliers, contracts or production location.
Moving constraints · Depot fleets · 2023–2026
Depot connection and energisation
The trucks stand at the depot, and the decision that keeps them there was made somewhere else.
What changed
At the depot. Fleets plan the project, complete the site design, and then stop.
How it worked
A depot charging dozens or hundreds of vehicles creates a sharp synchronised peak. The utility evaluates the request against the worst-case load already on the local circuit together with the worst case the new site could draw, and where the combined figure exceeds what the circuit can carry, the project waits.
The regulator, not the utility. Industry parties asked the California Public Utilities Commission for timelines that would prioritise fleet projects against the state's own clean-truck deadlines, and the Commission declined to prioritise by customer type.
In practice
Fleets began by estimating annual energy use, which is not the number the utility studies, and discovered the mismatch after the site design was finished.
Why it matters
Control did not move, and that is the finding. The utility holds the connection and is barred from charging for priority, so relief would help everyone downstream and change nothing for the party holding it.
Industry boundary
Critical decisions moved beyond the automaker's direct control
Cell producers influenced production scale. Charging operators influenced journey coverage. Utilities and property owners influenced deployment speed. Financial institutions influenced whether customers could complete the transaction.
Competitive performance increasingly depended on coordinating actors that the automaker neither owned nor fully controlled.
What the electric journey has to clear
Select an actor to read the decision it holds
-
What the car industry decided on its own
A suitable vehicle
- Automakers
- Component suppliers
- Dealers
- Fuel retailers
-
Charging where the vehicle parks
-
Charging along the route
-
Electricity at the depot
-
How the vehicle is paid for
-
Cells to build with
-
Permission to sell the vehicle
-
The dashboard
The visible failure may occur far from the decision or organisation that caused it.
The electromobility field
The electromobility field · Charging where the vehicle parks
Property owners
Housing and parking determine who can charge easily at home.
In practice
Markets with different housing patterns need different provision models.
Who decides it · Charging where the vehicle parks
The electromobility field · Charging along the route
Charging operators
Governments, carmakers and charging companies built separate networks because nobody was responsible for charging everywhere.
In practice
Tesla built and operated a charging network integrated with its vehicles and route planning.
Who decides it · Charging along the route
The electromobility field · Charging along the route
Standards bodies
Standardising it took four years and a formal process at a standards body, and federal funding rules required the incumbent connector throughout.
In practice
Tesla opened its connector design while retaining ownership and operation of its charging network.
Who decides it · Charging along the route
The electromobility field · Electricity at the depot
Utilities
Connecting enough power to the depot could take nine months to three years, or five years when the local network required an upgrade.
In practice
Some operators built on-site generation rather than wait for a utility connection.
Who decides it · Electricity at the depot
The electromobility field · How the vehicle is paid for
Finance companies
Leases written in 2022 and 2023 assumed the cars would be worth 50 percent of their price on return. The reality is nearer 35 to 40 percent, and the gap lands on whoever wrote the forecast.
In practice
US electric-vehicle transactions weakened even though carmakers could still build and deliver the vehicles.
Who decides it · How the vehicle is paid for
The electromobility field · Cells to build with
Battery producers
Cell supplier allocates scarce supply
In practice
Carmakers signed take-or-pay agreements, prepaid suppliers, bought equity stakes and formed manufacturing joint ventures.
Who decides it · Cells to build with
The electromobility field · Cells to build with
Miners and refiners
A cell plant takes about three years to build. A new mine takes about fifteen.
In practice
A carmaker that fixes everything within its own control has not fixed its schedule.
Who decides it · Cells to build with
The electromobility field · Permission to sell the vehicle
Regulators
Chinese market-access rules changed which battery suppliers carmakers could use.
In practice
The regulator that set the rule controlled the decision, while the carmaker could respond by changing suppliers, contracts or production location.
Who decides it · Permission to sell the vehicle
The electromobility field · The dashboard
Software partners
Software companies gained access to the dashboard without gaining control of the vehicle.
In practice
The carmaker controls the vehicle and its update channel.
Who decides it · The dashboard
The argument
Electromobility expanded competition beyond the vehicle
Automaker strategies
Automakers pursued different strategies because they anticipated different constraints
Tesla, BYD, Toyota, Volkswagen, GM and Ford made different choices about charging, vertical integration, hybrid flexibility, platforms, sourcing and the pace of adoption.
Their strategies should be compared as different assumptions about how the market would develop, not as variations of one transition plan.
One question, six answers Which bottleneck would decide the transition?
Select a producer to read its record
Producers backed different bottlenecks, yet most moved toward greater vertical integration.
Automaker strategies
Automaker strategies · One question, six answers
Tesla
Tesla in-housed motors and harnesses and cut variety to two models
What changed
vehicle architecture and integration
In practice
Akio Toyoda commissioned veteran executive Shigeki Terashi to study Tesla. The team's conclusion was that Tesla had leaped ahead of the industry in almost every way: it had brought in-house nearly everything others outsourced - batteries, motors, wiring harnesses; it drew more than 90 percent of global sales from two mechanically near-identical models; it omitted the trim levels, feature combinations and model-year changes incumbents offered, and customers did not miss them; its charging network both drove adoption and harvested real-world data on battery life and charging habits; it was strong on aerodynamics; and its Giga Press collapsed dozens of parts into single castings. Terashi concluded Toyota needed to think more like Tesla and less like Toyota in nearly every aspect of its business.
Automaker strategies · One question, six answers
BYD
BYD came from batteries and spans $10,000 to $233,000
What changed
cell cost and price coverage
In practice
BYD offered more than a dozen electric models against Tesla's four nameplates, ranging from the Seagull below $10,000 to the Seal in the high $50,000s, with a $233,000 supercar planned. It topped Tesla on fourth-quarter 2023 sales to become the world's largest electric-car maker. In February 2024 its first chartered vessel, the BYD Explorer No. 1, unloaded more than three thousand cars at Bremerhaven, with seven more ships of up to seven thousand vehicles each on order, exports running to Australia, Brazil and Israel, and a Hungarian factory planned for 2026 - the first major Chinese automaker producing in Europe.
BYD was founded in the mid-1990s as a battery company by chemist Wang Chuanfu, whose distinctive capability was reverse-engineering rivals' products to be both better and cheaper; it won multibillion-dollar contracts from Motorola and Nokia, then bought a struggling carmaker in 2003 - tanking its stock - and within six years had China's top-selling sedan and was building plug-in hybrids.
Automaker strategies · One question, six answers
General Motors
GM built Ultium as a flexible platform first
What changed
platform scale
In practice
Two months after the Opel sale GM previewed a flexible EV platform - later Ultium, pouch cells stackable to serve everything from a sports car to a pickup - with product chief Mark Reuss declaring "General Motors believes the future is all-electric"; in 2018 Barra killed a flagship V-8 Cadillac because a gas engine would send the wrong message.
Automaker strategies · One question, six answers
Ford
Ford refused a platform and electrified the F-150 to defend a tariff-protected pool
What changed
segment protection
In practice
Ford's engineers never considered a from-scratch platform for the Lightning, unlike GM: a stand-alone platform would take longer and add hundreds of millions in cost against genuinely unknown demand. The programme lead's account is "We sat around and said, 'Who really wants an electric truck?' We don't know." The chosen method was to strip out engine, transmission and exhaust from the existing F-150 - of which Ford builds nearly a million a year - and insert a pack: use what you have, change only what you need.
Detroit's grip on the pickup market is rooted in an early-1960s 25 percent tariff on imported trucks - the "chicken tax", retaliation for European tariffs on American chicken. Toyota and Nissan circumvented it with US plants, Toyota building in San Antonio, and still failed: the Tundra typically sells less than a third of what third-place Ram sells. The Detroit three's big pickups and the SUVs on their platforms hold more than 90 percent of that market, are under half of their unit sales, and produce the vast majority of their profits, with buyers commonly paying above $70,000.
Automaker strategies · One question, six answers
Volkswagen
VW committed $40bn to MEB volume after Dieselgate
What changed
volume conversion
In practice
About a month after the scandal broke, roughly ten VW executives met at an inn near Wolfsburg in a session led by Herbert Diess, who had joined from BMW two months earlier. Sales board member Jürgen Stackmann described the realisation: "this could be an opportunity, if we jump far enough." The following week VW announced the MEB platform and earmarked $40 billion primarily for EVs through 2022, aiming to pass Tesla as the world's top EV seller by the mid-2020s.
Automaker strategies · One question, six answers
Toyota
Toyota held a portfolio against weak-grid markets
What changed
portfolio optionality
In practice
Toyota's structural argument, which Colias calls not unreasonable: it is the most global carmaker, strong in North America, Europe and China and deeply entrenched in developing markets from Central America to Southeast Asia to Africa, where the Hilux is ubiquitous and local grids are unreliable even for homes. Going all-in on electrics would mean abandoning millions of customers for whom routine plugging in is impossible.
Markets
Market structure determined which constraint became decisive
US passenger adoption became increasingly sensitive to transaction economics. China used rules and supply structure to shape participation. Depot fleets depended on access to power and the timing of grid connections.
A strategy that fits one market can be structurally wrong in another, even when the vehicle technology is similar.
Select a market to read its record
Markets
Markets
US passenger
US passenger adoption became increasingly sensitive to transaction economics.
What changed
Residual values and transaction financing
Transaction and finance · 2022–2026
In practice
Reprice the vehicle or lease, change risk allocation, or replace support
Why it matters
Lessors, lenders, carmakers and government, depending on the term
Applies to · Daily passenger travel
Markets
China passenger
China used rules and supply structure to shape participation.
What changed
Cell localisation and supplier-qualification rules
Materials and supply · 2020–2026
In practice
Qualify suppliers, localise production or reorganise contracts
Why it matters
The regulator sets the rule; carmakers reorganise supply to comply
Applies to · Urban passenger travel
Markets
Depot fleets
Depot fleets depended on access to power and the timing of grid connections.
What changed
Depot energisation and grid-connection time
Power and grid · 2023–2026
In practice
Apply early, phase deployment, change the site plan or add local energy resources
Why it matters
Utility, regulator and fleet operator
Applies to · Commercial delivery and freight routes
The Atlas
The Atlas connects the constraints, strategic choices and shifts in industry control
Explore how technologies, market structures, company strategies and external dependencies combined to reshape electromobility.
Select a territory for a short orientation
Open the full map
Explore how technologies, market structures, company strategies and external dependencies combined to reshape electromobility.
The Atlas
The Atlas
Mobility and Charging
What a journey needs to work
Concepts in this territory
Journey Coverage · Vehicle Use
Contains · 8 Concepts in this territory
The Atlas
Vehicle Architecture
Who decides how it goes together
Concepts in this territory
Licensed Platforms · Carmaker Liability
Contains · 6 Concepts in this territory
The Atlas
Software and Autonomy
Where the decisions sit
Concepts in this territory
Customer Interface · Software Everywhere
Contains · 6 Concepts in this territory
The Atlas
Value Chain Constraints
Where it binds and how it moves
Concepts in this territory
Hidden Constraint · Grid Lead Time · Cell Allocation
Contains · 7 Concepts in this territory
The Atlas
Rules and Market Access
Who is allowed to compete
Concepts in this territory
Rule-Driven Supply · Incumbent Advantages
Contains · 6 Concepts in this territory
The Atlas
Value and Control
Money moved, control did not
Concepts in this territory
Battery Profits · Integrator Control · Financing Failure
Contains · 7 Concepts in this territory
Work with us
Apply this analysis to your strategic question
We build evidence-led industry analyses that identify changing constraints, strategic positions and new sources of control and value.
-
Executive briefing
A focused leadership session on how the industry is changing and what the changes mean for the organisation.
-
Strategic diagnostic
An analysis of the constraints, dependencies and strategic assumptions shaping a specific business or programme.
-
Custom industry Atlas
A proprietary analysis of an industry's actors, mechanisms, strategic positions, rival explanations and possible futures.
This page is a public example of that work.