Automated Trucks The next big disruptor in the automotive industry?

Roland Berger
arc beats above · slides in the middle · loops below · scroll → 2 LOOPS
SETUP TENSION ANALYSIS EVIDENCE RESOLUTION APPENDIX
HOVER FOR DETAILS · CLICK A SLIDE FOR FULLSCREEN · STEP 1
No image bound to this slide. Wire up imgproxy to display the rendered slide JPEG.

Deck intelligence map

4
coverage by narrative range · generated from this deck JSON

Slide inventory

23
every slide · same image gating as the playbook
01
Slide 1
front_matter
Open slide detailBeat · Situation & Context
02
summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Situation & Context
03
The slide uses a word cloud to represent the relative importance or frequency of industry issues.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Situation & ContextLoop · Cost Of Inaction
04
The slide uses a hub-and-spoke style layout with a central image of an automated truck platoon.quantify_impact
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & ComplicationLoop · Cost Of Inaction
05
The slide uses a combination of bar charts to illustrate the delta between projected trends without automation and the potential impact of automation.quantify_impact
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & ComplicationLoop · Cost Of Inaction
06
The slide uses a simple additive framework to show how two distinct technologies converge into the concept of self-driving trucks.present_solution
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
07
Uses the standard SAE J3016 levels of driving automation framework.present_framework
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
08
Uses the SAE levels of driving automation as the framework.present_framework
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
09
The diagram uses a hub-and-spoke layout to show the relationship between central integrated controls and peripheral technology areas.present_framework
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
10
The slide uses a central illustration of a truck cabin to map various technological modules to their functions.present_framework
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
11
The chart uses a waterfall structure to show cumulative costs per stage.quantify_impact
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
12
The chart uses a waterfall structure to show cost components, with specific callouts for 'Focus of analysis' areas.quantify_impact
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
13
The slide uses maps to illustrate geographic scope and bullet points to define operational parameters for each use case.illustrate_case
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & ProofLoop · Quick Win Big Bet
14
The slide uses a combination of bar charts for savings and payback periods, with a 36-month threshold line.quantify_impact
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & ProofLoop · Quick Win Big Bet
15
The chart shows payback times in months for two different likelihoods of platoon formation (45% vs 90%) across five stages of automation.quantify_impact
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
16
frame_problem
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
17
summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
18
The slide uses a hub-and-spoke style diagram to show how different forces impact the central 'Automated truck' node.frame_problem
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
19
The slide uses a V-model diagram to illustrate the depth of integration (Vehicle, System, Content) for different automation levels.present_framework
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
20
The slide uses a matrix structure to show increasing complexity on the Y-axis and process flow on the X-axis.present_framework
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
21
The slide uses a grouped bar chart structure to compare two distinct segments across two key behavioral dimensions.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
23
front_matter