The transition to software-defined vehicles (SDVs) is high on the priority list for automakers.

While most, if not all, are working toward a similar goal, each company has its own unique set of challenges and tools to address them. Startup OEMs are often better positioned for the software race, while traditional automakers have the manufacturing infrastructure and processes needed to succeed.

However, all have encountered bumps along the way. Software-related issues have led to delayed deliveries, recalls and other glitches, affecting automakers from GM, Stellantis, Volvo and others on the legacy side to Lucid, Rivan and Tesla on the startup side.

For legacy automakers, software woes are the result of several factors. Projects can easily be derailed by poor change management, insufficient testing and an overall lack of focus. Meanwhile, startups, while they can move faster and are more nimble, often are not as accustomed to the industry’s rigorous quality requirements.

To remedy software glitches, product delays and quality issues, automakers must adhere to a clearly defined goal, return to the engineering rigor that has driven countless automotive innovations and change their approach to change management.

Setting the goal posts – and keeping them there

The ever-evolving nature of SDVs is one of their biggest benefits – allowing for updates and new features throughout the life of the vehicle. However, it also has its drawbacks on the development side. We often see OEMs struggle with system design and setting clear, consistent goals. This constant shift in focus puts software teams at risk of losing the plot.

When adjusting software development on the fly to meet changing goals, the original intent of the product can be lost in translation to the point that it’s a far cry from the original vision. A top priority for any software project is to ensure that the team is aligned on the end goal, desired features and important benchmarks along the way.

All too often, the development team doesn’t have a clear understanding of what “done” looks like. This disorganization can be mitigated by establishing test cases around the intended goal of a product, as well as test cases around what a product is not intended to do. These procedures will ensure that, amid day-to-day chaos, the project is not going off the rails or straying from its true intent.

Too many cooks in the kitchen

At its core, this comes down to poor change management practices. Naturally, any software project will undergo change throughout its lifecycle, but things go south when that change is poorly communicated across the organization.

Often, executives’ response to a software team beginning to lose focus is to bring in more project managers. The thinking behind this is, if existing members of the software team do not fully understand the direction of the project, maybe new hires will. In reality, the opposite is true. Bringing more cooks into the kitchen only creates further confusion. The perceived need to bring in more project managers is often an indicator that the project at hand was poorly designed to begin with.

Old school testing rigor

In mechanical product development and innovation, the automotive industry is well-known for its leadership and engineering rigor. Developing safe, reliable vehicles requires thoughtful, tested system design, and this is no different for SDVs. However, for a variety of reasons, this rigor has taken a back seat as technology advances at a faster pace. Modern software teams opt for a more agile, fast-paced approach to development, prioritizing innovation over time spent testing.

The old school approach to testing requires great amounts of discipline, documentation and engineering rigor, it’s a necessary evil for a software organization looking to improve product quality issues. This approach may take away time that could be spent focusing on innovation, but it will also minimize the time and cost spent fixing bugs and correcting mistakes down the road.

Beyond the time and effort required to fix post-launch defects, OEMs can suffer reputational damage when software issues are discovered after launch. Though adequate testing requires hard work and time, the benefits of having a successful, thoroughly tested product are well worth the cost.

As the auto industry’s transition to SDVs marches on, it’s only natural for automakers to experience some bumps along the way. By clearly defining the goal of a project, returning to old school testing practices and taking a “less is more” approach to team structure software development teams can prevent those bumps from becoming serious turbulence.

To learn more about how Envorso can help with delivering well-tuned products to the market, please visit http://envorso.com/services/support-maintanance-2/.