An Enhanced CPI-Based Framework for Risk Management in New Energy Vehicle Development
- 1 Beijing Automotive Technology Center Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
- 2 Beijing Automotive Technology Center Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
- 3 Beijing Automotive Technology Center Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
- 4 Beijing Automotive Technology Center Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
- 5 Beijing Automotive Technology Center Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
- 6 Beijing Automotive Technology Center Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
- 7 Beijing Automotive Technology Center Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
Abstract
The rapid expansion of the global new energy vehicle (NEV) industry has introduced unprecedented technical, operational, and systemic risks, driven by increasing system complexity and intelligent connectivity features. This study critically examines prevailing risk management practices in NEV development and evaluates the effectiveness of existing qualitative risk assessment approaches used by automakers. The analysis reveals significant methodological limitations, particularly in consistency, standardization, and decision-support capability. To address these gaps, this paper develops an enhanced Criticality Priority Index (CPI) framework that integrates maturity assessment into a structured three-dimensional risk evaluation model. By embedding technological maturity and process readiness into CPI calculations, the proposed approach strengthens the analytical rigor and comparability of qualitative risk assessments. The study validates the enhanced framework through empirical case applications, demonstrating its superiority over conventional qualitative methods in risk classification accuracy and managerial usability. Furthermore, the findings show that the enhanced CPI model improves risk-level discrimination, supports more precise resource prioritization, and enhances project-level decision-making under uncertainty. Overall, the research advances risk management methodology for complex engineering projects and provides a practical, multi-dimensional assessment tool tailored to the technologically intensive environment of NEV development.
- Barghi, B., & Shadrokh Sikari, S. (2020). Qualitative and Quantitative Project Risk Assessment Using a Hybrid PMBOK Model Developed under Uncertainty Conditions. Heliyon, 6, e03097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e03097
- Cagno, E., Caron, F., & Mancini, M. (2007). A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Major Risks in Complex Projects. Risk Management, 9, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rm.8250014
- Cervone, H. F. (2006). Project Risk Management. OCLC Systems & Services: Inter national digital library perspectives, 22, 256-262. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650750610706970
- Cox Jr., L. A., Babayev, D., & Huber, W. (2005). Some Limitations of Qualitative Risk Rating Systems. Risk Analysis, 25, 651-662. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00615.x
- Dias, G. C., Hernandez, C. T., & Oliveira, U. R. d. (2020). Supply Chain Risk Management and Risk Ranking in the Automotive Industry. Gestão & Produção, 27, e3800. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530x3800-20
- Dionne, G. (2013). Risk Management: History, Definition, and Critique. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 16, 147-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/rmir.12016
- Fang, C., & Marle, F. (2012). A Simulation-Based Risk Network Model for Decision Support in Project Risk Management. Decision Support Systems, 52, 635-644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.10.021
- Huang, Y. (2025). Exploring the Principle of Multi-Dimensional Risk Analysis and a Case Study in Two-Dimensional Risk. Risk s, 13, Article 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks13040079
- Jones, C. (1994). Assessment and Control of Software Risk s . Yourdon Press.
- Kendrick, T. (2015). Identifying and Managing Project Risk : Essential Tools for Failure-Proofing Your Project . Amacom.
- Lansdowne, Z. F. (1999). Risk Matrix: An Approach for Prioritizing Risks and Tracking Risk Mitigation Progress. In P roc eedings of the 30th Annual Project Management Institute .
- Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturaltstu Inquiry . Sage.
- Ochieng, P. A. (2009). An Analysis of the Strengths and Limitation of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Paradigms. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 13, 13-18.
- Schwandt, T. A. (1989). The Politics of Verifying Trustworthiness in Evaluation Auditing. Evaluation Practice, 10, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821408901000405