Interview with Sharath Reddy, Magna
“Flexibility comes from modularity and decoupling”
Since joining Magna in 2019, Sharath Reddy has been shaping cross-domain R&D strategies at one of the world’s largest automotive suppliers.
Magna
As electrification accelerates and software becomes central to vehicle identity, EV development is shifting from component-led optimisation to integrated, systems-level engineering. In this interview, Sharath Reddy from Magna explains why this transition is redefining EV platforms.
Sharath Reddy is Senior Vice President, Corporate R&D at Magna, where
he oversees technology development across vehicle systems with a strong focus
on electrification, electronics and software.
With more than two decades of experience spanning ADAS
portfolios, electronics engineering and system software development –
including senior roles at ZF Group and board-level involvement at SDVerse –
Reddy brings a system-level perspective on how vehicle architectures are
evolving.
At the intersection of electrification, software-defined
vehicles and manufacturing readiness, he offers insights into why
today’s EV challenges can no longer be solved through isolated optimisation.
Building on this background, we spoke with him about the structural shifts
shaping next-generation electric vehicle development.
ADT: Many OEMs
describe electromobility as being at a technological turning point. From your
perspective, what fundamentally differentiates today’s
EV development challenges from those of just a few years ago?
Reddy: A few years ago,
EV development was still largely component-led. Teams optimized batteries,
motors, and thermal systems independently, and integration came late in the
process. Today, the shift is far more profound. We’re
seeing electrification accelerate and at the same time regulations tighten,
consumer expectations regionalize, and software becomes central to the
vehicle’s identity. What fundamentally differentiates today’s challenge is the
pace and the level of integration required. OEMs can no longer afford
sequential development cycles or siloed decision-making. Success now depends on
taking a systems-level approach from day one—aligning mechanical, thermal,
software, and manufacturing requirements in parallel to create platforms that
are resilient, adaptable, and future-proof. This shift toward integrated, high‑velocity development is the biggest change in the EV landscape.
As electric
vehicle architectures grow more complex, traditional component-centric
optimization is reaching its limits. How should OEMs rethink vehicle
development at the system level?
OEMs need to
redesign their development model around systems thinking and early alignment.
In the most successful programs today, engineering, manufacturing, and
suppliers work together from the start, making real‑time decisions that reduce rework and accelerate learning cycles. System‑level development means mapping functions and interfaces early,
consolidating complexity, and verifying performance at the system level rather
than optimizing isolated subsystems. When product, process, and factory are
designed together, you can eliminate late-stage surprises, compress timelines,
and improve both cost and quality. This is quickly becoming the operating model
for leading EV programs.
Where do you currently see the biggest
risks of overengineering in electric vehicle platforms, especially when systems
are still optimized in isolation?
The biggest risk
is designing maximum capability today without considering adaptability
tomorrow. For example, oversizing batteries or building rigid thermal or
structural configurations may deliver short‑term performance but lock in cost, weight, and manufacturing
complexity. When teams optimize components in isolation, they often introduce
interfaces, redundancies, or tolerances that create downstream
challenges—especially in software, thermal management, and manufacturability.
Overengineering at the component level reduces the flexibility that OEMs have
to adopt new chemistries, new control strategies, or more efficient
architectures later. A systems-led approach helps avoid these traps by looking
holistically at long‑term flexibility.
Battery chemistry, thermal
management, software and E/E architectures are becoming increasingly
interdependent. How should OEMs structure their platforms to remain flexible
across future technology generations?
Flexibility
comes from modularity and decoupling. Chemistry‑agnostic concepts, modular thermal subsystems, and software‑defined hardware give OEMs the ability to integrate new technologies
without redesigning entire platforms. Zonal E/E
architectures and decoupled hardware and software stacks are also
critical—they support over‑the‑air updates, simplify integration, and reduce the number of ECUs and
interfaces in the vehicle. That flexibility also includes supporting multi‑energy solutions such as EV, hybrid, and ICE, which remain important
in different regions as OEMs hedge against regulatory uncertainty and varied
market readiness. When you combine these architectural principles with parallel
development workflows and early manufacturing input, you create platforms that
are both flexible and scalable across multiple technology cycles.
Magna refers to chemistry-agnostic
battery concepts and modular thermal architectures. How realistic is this
approach in series production, and where are the technical trade-offs
today?
This approach is
increasingly realistic. Many OEMs are now designing flexible pack enclosures,
modular cooling plates, and control strategies that can support multiple
chemistries as technology evolves. The trade‑offs include some upfront complexity and the need for sophisticated
controls, but the long‑term benefits—scalability, supply‑chain resilience, and platform longevity—are significant. From our perspective,
integrating manufacturing early is what makes these concepts viable at scale.
When architecture, automation strategy, and thermal design are aligned from the
start, you reduce late changes and create a clear path to industrialization.
The industry
is gradually moving away from a “bigger battery” mindset. How does this shift
affect vehicle efficiency and cost at the system level?
Moving beyond
the bigger‑battery mindset
forces a deeper focus on holistic efficiency. When OEMs optimize the entire
system—thermal, mechanical,
software, and driver experience—they can deliver the same or better range with less mass, lower
cost, and better packaging flexibility. This shift also accelerates time‑to‑market. Smaller,
more optimized packs reduce structural demands, simplify manufacturing, and
minimize the ripple effects that late battery changes often create. The end
result is a more efficient, more affordable product without compromising
capability.
Looking ahead to the next decade, which
architectural decisions made today will have the greatest long-term impact on
scalability and SDV strategies?
The decisions
with the greatest long-term impact are the ones that enable interoperability,
modularity, and software‑defined
capability. Zonal architectures, consolidated compute, and OTA‑ready platforms lay the groundwork for continuous improvement over
the life of the vehicle. Equally important is designing the product, process,
and factory together. Architecture choices now directly influence
manufacturability, automation readiness, and the speed at which new variants
can be industrialized. The OEMs that embed this systems-led, parallel
development mindset today will be the ones best positioned for the SDV era.
