Starting point
Situation in the initial state
-
Battery for 'light mobility' applications (e.g. e-scooter) with approx. 1 kWh energy content.
-
Customer’s baseline concept without our optimization.
-
Decisions were heavily driven by 'we’ve always done it this way' and by already depreciated equipment at the production site.
-
Hardly an innovative product and production costs that were not competitive.
-
Total cycle time of all process steps: 803 s per battery pack.
Product costs in the initial state
| Component | Quantity | Share [%] | Cost [€] |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purchased parts (cells & BMS) | 40 | 61,8 | 179,7 |
| Other components | 60 | 25,5 | 74,0 |
| Production costs | – | 12,7 | 37,0 |
| Product costs | – | 100 | 290,7 |
Components
The company repeatedly relied on the same traditional components – with little innovation.
Joining technology
The same joining technology was used across all components. The equipment for this was available and had long since been fully depreciated.
Cell interconnection
The same cell interconnection technique was used in all products. The equipment for this was available and had long since been fully depreciated.
Line design
To achieve the planned output quantity, more than one production line was required.
Effort: scope of the study
In the optimized concept, both unit costs and manufacturing effort were significantly reduced – with unchanged functionality and performance of the battery.
Component analysis
Every single component was analysed in detail regarding cost, function, potential to take over functions of other parts, manufacturability and the option to merge several components into one or split an expensive, complex part into more cost-efficient individual pieces.
Joining technology
Every joint between components was assessed for alternative joining technologies. Options were evaluated by cycle time, cost, function, manufacturability, corrosion behaviour, chemical compatibility as well as required process steps and capital expenditure (CapEx).
Cell interconnection
All common cell interconnection techniques were systematically analysed and evaluated with respect to manufacturing cost, assembly effort, cycle time, required process steps and capital expenditure (CapEx).
Line design
The required production time per battery pack was compared across all combinations of components, cell interconnection and joining technologies. It was also considered when a concept required more than one production line.
Product after optimization
Situation after optimization
-
Battery for 'light mobility' applications (e.g. e-scooter) with approx. 1 kWh energy content.
-
Competitive, innovative product with multiple patents.
-
Decisions are now driven by optimal solutions instead of legacy equipment.
-
Jointly owned decisions lead to broad acceptance across the organisation.
-
Total cycle time of all process steps: 457 s per battery pack.
Cost structure after optimization
| Component | Quantity | Share [%] | Cost [€] |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purchased parts | 40 | 78,5 | 179,7 |
| Additional components | 29 | 14,4 | 32,9 |
| Manufacturing costs | – | 7,1 | 16,4 |
| Product costs | – | 100 | 229,0 |
Cost reduction: production and component costs
The bars show the relative production and component costs before and after optimization compared to the original 100 %.
Components
Reduced variety and number of parts → less complexity in purchasing, logistics and quality management. Optimization of the value-adding process chain and elimination of inefficient process steps.
Joining technology
We deliberately chose three different joining technologies at specific points in the product. This enabled both cost reductions and improvements in quality and durability.
Cell interconnection
Switch to a cost-optimized cell interconnection technology despite higher upfront investment. The purchase of new welding equipment was economically attractive, even though existing machines were already fully depreciated.
Line design
We deliberately defined two expansion stages, reducing initial investment. The second stage introduces full automation to reach the maximum throughput line. The break-even point (compared to the starting concept) was already achieved in the first year after SOP.
Success: technological added value & organisational impact
With NOVA we achieved far more than a pure cost optimization.
It created technological differentiators, improved internal processes and made the platform scalable.
Patents & technological game-changers
In this NOVA project, a genuine 'game-changer' patent was developed, implemented in the design and filed. The new joining technology not only reduces costs but also increases ease of assembly and robustness.
Several related patents were also filed in the areas of 'battery safety', 'test methods' and 'battery design'. Cost optimization was thus used as a strategic lever for further technology development.
Reduced product costs
From €111 to €49.30 (excluding purchased parts).
Reduced cycle time
From 803 s to 457 s.
Fewer individual parts
From 60 down to 29 parts.
Savings per battery pack
From €290.70 to €229.00.
Would you like to achieve similar results?
Let’s analyse your current product concept together. We will identify concrete savings potential – from joining technology and component reduction through to line design.
Contact us about NOVAMehr über das Team hinter NOVA erfahren Sie auf unserer Über-uns-Seite .
❯ Step-by-step approach with NOVA
NOVA is not a one-off workshop but a clearly structured approach – from the first idea through to implemented cost optimization. A typical project looks like this:
Clarify basic collaboration potential (15–30 min).
Understand needs & application potential (approx. 1 h – remote).
Present proposal, clarify questions & decide on project start (30–60 min).
After offer acceptance: on-site assessment (approx. 2 weeks).
Workshop with your team to identify potentials (3 days).
Summarise potentials & decide on continuation of NOVA.
Implementation of measures (scope depending on the client – mainly remote / premium on-site support).
Fine-up workshop: align with your teams and refine the solutions.
Elaboration & support of implementation in development, purchasing and production.
Design freeze & final summary of the product optimization – including a robust business case package.