Nominal selling into warranty budgets

This matters because it shifts Nominal from selling to test engineers with discretionary R&D tools budgets into selling to operators who own real P&L pain when vehicles fail in the field. Field quality and warranty teams are judged on claims cost, service campaign scope, and time to isolate bad parts across huge fleets. A tool that cuts root cause work from months to minutes can pay for itself by reducing unnecessary repairs, recalls, and dealer labor, not by helping an engineering lab run tests faster.1 2 3 4

• Workbench was built for quality, service, and field monitoring workflows, not lab testing. It pulls telematics, diagnostics, warranty, and manufacturing data into one place so a quality engineer can trace a failure pattern across thousands of vehicles instead of checking separate PLM, MES, QMS, and dealer systems by hand.1 5
• That budget line matters inside automakers. Warranty and aftersales groups typically sit apart from R&D, and their spending is tied to lowering claims and campaign costs. Industry research shows OEMs still run many quality investigations through slow, retrospective warranty processes, which creates a clear budget owner for software that speeds containment.3 4
• For Nominal, this opens a second wedge beyond test and validation. The same core data plumbing that ingests hardware test data can now be aimed at in market vehicles, where the data volume is much larger and the buyer cares about fleet level failure rates, dealer fixes, and warranty accruals rather than pass or fail test runs.1 2 6

The next step is turning Pull Systems' Volkswagen Group style field deployments into full Nominal platform contracts. If Nominal can connect pre launch test data with post launch warranty data in one system, it can become the software layer that helps automakers catch defects earlier, narrow service actions, and justify much larger multiteam subscriptions.1 2 6