The co-development projects that struggle are rarely the ambitious ones. They are the ones where the brief described a product instead of an operating envelope, so every engineering question became a change request and every change request reopened a decision that had already been priced. Three working models exist, and most of the friction in this category comes from a model that was never named out loud.
Charger co-development: what separates a project from a programme
Co-development works when the brief fixes the constraints and leaves the engineering open.
Three models cover most arrangements: the brand specifies the product, the brand specifies the use case and the factory proposes the design, or both sides engineer together with shared responsibility for the outcome. The model decides who owns the design, who pays for a change and how many loops a decision costs.
A brand that assumes the second model while the factory works to the first will experience every design suggestion as an invoice, and the factory will experience every brand instruction as rework. Naming the model before the first engineering meeting is cheaper than negotiating it in month three, when the tooling has been discussed and the schedule has been promised to a channel.
Model A: the brand specifies the product
The brand owns every decision, including the ones it cannot yet evaluate.
This model suits a buyer who already knows the architecture, the component families and the thermal position, and who is paying for manufacturing rather than for engineering. It is fast when the specification is complete and expensive when it is not, because every gap becomes a change request priced against a design that was already frozen. The factory’s role is to build to the drawing and to report a deviation, not to improve the brief.
Model B: the brand specifies the use case and the factory proposes
The most efficient model for a first programme, and the one the brief matters most in.
The brand states the operating envelope – load profile, ambient conditions, plug variants, target markets, transport and drop expectations, certification targets and the forecast – and the factory proposes the architecture and the enclosure. Engineering questions are answered against the envelope rather than against a product picture, which is why the design loops are fewer. The brand still owns the commercial decisions and the specification approval; it has simply stopped specifying things it cannot yet judge.
Model C: joint development with shared engineering
Both sides contribute engineering, and the contract has to say who owns the result.
This model fits a programme where the brand brings a genuine technical asset, such as a charging algorithm, a proprietary accessory or an existing platform it wants extended, and the factory brings production, thermal and compliance experience. It carries the highest coordination cost and the clearest need for written ownership: the design files, the tooling, the test data and the right to build the result for another customer all have to be assigned rather than assumed.
| Model | Who owns the design | Cost of a change | Speed | Best fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A Brand specifies | Brand | Highest, priced per request | Fast if the brief is complete | Buyers with in-house engineering |
| B Factory proposes | Brand, on a factory platform | Low inside the envelope | Fastest for a first programme | Brands with a commercial brief |
| C Joint development | Negotiated and written | Shared, needs a rule | Slowest to first sample | Programmes with a technical asset |
What a co-development brief has to contain
Nine items, and every one of them prevents a design loop.
The continuous and peak load profile, the ambient temperature the product must hold its rating in, the plug systems and the markets, the transport and drop expectation, the certification targets, the port and cable requirements, the packaging direction, the must-have versus tradeable list, and the twelve-month forecast. The last item decides as much as the first, because it sets which platform is economic. A brief missing the ambient condition will produce a design that meets the specification on a bench and derates in a warm room.
The cost structure of a co-development programme
Engineering hours, tooling, change requests and certification are four separate lines.
Engineering time is the line most often left unpriced, which is why it appears later inside the unit price. Tooling is a fixed charge that follows the enclosure. Change requests are priced per event, so the model and the envelope decide how many occur. Certification follows the final design and can only be quoted once the architecture is settled. A brand comparing two quotations should ask which of the four lines each one contains, because a quotation that omits engineering has not removed it, only moved it.
Ownership, exclusivity and the second source question
The right to move the design later is worth negotiating before the design exists.
Ask which files the brand receives, in which format, and whether a second factory may build the product from them. Where the design sits on a factory platform, the brand’s claim is limited to its tooling and its artwork, and that is normal. Where the brand has paid for the enclosure and contributed engineering, the files should transfer, the tooling should be identified by a plate number, and the conditions under which the factory may build the same form for another customer should be written down.
FAQ
Is co-development just OEM with more meetings?
It is different in one specific way: in co-development the specification is still being decided while the project runs, so the model for who decides what has to be agreed first. OEM with a frozen specification is a faster and cheaper arrangement, and it is the right answer when the brief is already complete. OEM with a frozen specification is faster and cheaper, and it is the right answer when the brief is already complete.
Some factories say they charge nothing for engineering. Where is that cost?
Inside the unit price, the tooling quotation or the minimum order. Unpriced engineering is not free engineering; it is engineering that will be recovered across the production order. Ask for the four cost lines separately and the same total becomes comparable with a quotation that states them. Ask for the four cost lines separately, because unpriced engineering is recovered across the production order rather than given away.
Do we need co-development to get exclusivity?
No. Exclusivity comes from what the brand owns: paid tooling, a proprietary accessory or an agreed restriction written into the contract. A brand can hold a strong claim on a shared platform with paid tooling and packaging artwork, and it can hold none at all on a developed design if the ownership clauses were never drafted. Exclusivity comes from what the brand owns rather than from the model chosen.
Can we move a co-developed design to a second factory later?
Only if the files transfer and the design does not depend on factory-specific tooling or test data. Ask for the formats, the tooling identification and the test records at the end of the programme, and check that a second supplier could reproduce the product from them without a redesign. Ask for the formats, the tooling identification and the test records at the end, and check that a second supplier could reproduce the product.
Next step
Send the use case, the operating envelope, the target markets and the forecast to Wecent Group through the contact page. The reply proposes a model, states which parts of the brief still need a decision and lists the engineering, tooling, change and certification lines separately. Related reading: charger manufacturing services, GaN charger applications and our charger factory. External references: USB Power Delivery specification, IEC standards, EU CE marking rules, TUV testing services, UL standards and certification and ICC Incoterms rules.
{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”FAQPage”,”mainEntity”:[{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Is co-development just OEM with more meetings?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”It is different in one specific way: in co-development the specification is still being decided while the project runs, so the model for who decides what has to be agreed first. OEM with a frozen specification is a faster and cheaper arrangement, and it is the right answer when the brief is already complete.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Some factories say they charge nothing for engineering. Where is that cost?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Inside the unit price, the tooling quotation or the minimum order. Unpriced engineering is not free engineering; it is engineering that will be recovered across the production order. Ask for the four cost lines separately and the same total becomes comparable with a quotation that states them.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Do we need co-development to get exclusivity?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”No. Exclusivity comes from what the brand owns: paid tooling, a proprietary accessory or an agreed restriction written into the contract. A brand can hold a strong claim on a shared platform with paid tooling and packaging artwork, and it can hold none at all on a developed design if the ownership clauses were never drafted.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Can we move a co-developed design to a second factory later?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Only if the files transfer and the design does not depend on factory-specific tooling or test data. Ask for the formats, the tooling identification and the test records at the end of the programme, and check that a second supplier could reproduce the product from them without a redesign.”}}]}