Some cars are reliable and cleanly designed. Others are complex and riddled with problems. And the same manufacturers seem to have the same problems, year after year, notes Consumer Reports.
"If you compare a Honda Pilot and a Chevrolet Traverse, you can see the difference," David Champion, senior director of Consumer Reports' Auto Test Division, told Design News. "There are many, many more parts screwed into the Traverse -- clips and brackets for wiring and pipe work. Whereas when you look underneath the hood of a Pilot, you see that everything is beautifully laid out. Everything is made to fit exactly."
Champion contends that the differences between vehicles could be too easily laid at the doorstep of the engineering staff. In fact, he believes the problems are at a much higher level. "It's the business culture that sets the engineering culture," Champion says. "It comes from the very top."
It's hard to argue that there's a cultural chasm at work here. For some reason, Toyota and Honda again dominated the reliability ratings (in the 2012 auto issue of Consumer Reports), while BMW, Volkswagen, General Motors, and Chrysler again brought up the rear. Moreover, analysis of ten years worth of ratings by the magazine showed that most automakers have improved since 2002, suggesting that they know how to get the job done. The ugly truth, though, is that there's still a big gap between bottom and top.
Honda's Pilot: "Everything is made exactly to fit."
"The bottom line is that some companies want to make their profits today and they keep their vehicles reliable for three years, so that they don't have to pay out a lot on warranty costs," Champion said. "But when we look at problems per hundred after five years, we see them escalating considerably with some of the manufacturers, such as Mini, GMC, BMW, Audi, and Chrysler."
Previous years' studies, based on about 1.3 million annual user surveys, have had strikingly similar results. In 2007, for example, Consumer Reports picked 55 "good bets" among used vehicles. Fifty-five of them were Asian. In the same year, it picked 38 "bad bets." Eighteen were North American, 16 were European, and four were Asian.
This post offers a pretty insightful look into the psyche of how auto makers come at creating a culture around product development. The thing that stood out to me is the whole Japanese focus on looking at engineering from a systems standpoint. Not a new concept, certainly, but definitely one we are hearing spades about as products, be it cars or aircraft, get more complex.
@Chuck -- in a nutshell "Those manufacturers, the Center says, tend to think in terms of systems, rather than individual parts." Wow, does this hit it right on the head. I've been teaching Systems Thinking to undergraduate future technical managers since 2000. The idea of "parts make systems" rather than "systems are comprised of parts" is something that takes quite a while to transform in our students. Not knocking 12-years of elementary and secondary school, but they too often take a bottom-up approach when it comes to teaching concepts -- picking up seemingly random concepts that are only integrated in the much higher grades, if at all. In my own experience, I didn't get the value of algebra, geometry, trig, and calculus until I took Differential Equations and applied it in my Physics and Engineering Mechanics courses.
One of the memes I use in my Systems courses is "Start from Scratch rather than Patch" -- bolting on components makes a product "multi-functional" but it does not make it "inter-functional". When each of the component parts is integrated into the design with an awareness of the other parts, the concept of "elegance" is allowed to emerge...
"Quality" is a misleading word. In manufacturing, Quality is conformance to specifications. So if your design specification is junk, you can make "quality" junk. And Defect does not equal Defective. "Defective" may mean 1 or 2 Major Defects, or possibly 4 or more Minor Defects.
Quality is also "in the mind of the beholder". I remember the story of a driver who was willing to wait 2 weeks for parts for his Mercedes - "a fine piece of automotive engineering", but complained that getting parts for his Dodge would take 2 days = "piece of junk".
I agree that engineers may be hampered by the limits set by upper management. I wonder who decided that the Pontiac Fiero, which I thought was supposed to be the Pontiac Corvette, would have a 4 cylinder engine. We called it "All show, no go".
@GlennA - Management was swayed by the late 1970's gas cruch and decided the Fiero would be a "fuel-efficient sporty commuter"... sort of the Pontiac Chevette, rather than the Pontiac Corvette... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Fiero
Thanks @Chuck! I've commented directly on the article you provided. Way awesome stuff. I'm dismayed that seven years later, we are not using the functional Build more publically.
@williamlweaver: Great comments on the importance of systems thinking. In failure analysis, there's a tendency to focus on the part which failed, rather than the mechanical system which it belongs to. People tend to ask, "What's wrong with this part?" rather than, "How was this part loaded?"
As a metallurgist, people often send me a broken part in a box and expect me to tell them why it failed. Sometimes, I might be able to find something (such low hardness or microstructural defects) which would tend to make the part more likely to break. But without understanding the application, I can't tell them why it broke. Finding a defect in a part is not the same as finding the root cause of a failure.
A consequence of this, as I've discussed elsewhere, is that the knee-jerk response to a part failure is to make the part stronger. This often results in a failure occurring somewhere else in the system, so the next part to break is also made stronger, and so on. Ultimately, it results in designs which are unnecessarily heavy and expensive, while underlying root causes are never addressed.
A Chinese friend of mine, who is a philosophy professor, says that Western cultures tend to be reductionist, while Asian cultures tend to be holistic. I think that reductionism (breaking things down into their simplest parts) is actually an incredibly powerful tool, but it needs to be complemented with a holistic (or systems) view.
@Dave Palmer, wise council. I'm often surprised by the reliance on reductionism here in the West. Perhaps it is my terminal degree in Analytical Chemistry that has taken me to the bleeding-edge of analysis so that I can appreciate the importance of system integration. There is often no better zealot for a cause than a convert, and I've been evangelizing Systems Thinking for some time. There is an amazing dichotomy in our culture. Those who can see Similarities among items that appear Different have a "Scientific" talent, while those who can see Differences among items that appear Similar have an "Artistic" bent. Scientists dissect to generate additional parts, while Artists integrate to create fewer wholes. We have a strong scientific / technical reputation here in the West, yet we are often also seen as being a hub of Artistic talent with Hollywood, Broadway, and Silicon Valley.
The magic happens when the Analyst and the Systems Integrator are talents that are developed within the same person, or at least the same team. Knowing when to view a problem from each reference frame is a valuable tool. I totally agree with your suggestion that optimizing the strength of a single part simply transfers stress to surrounding parts, which in turn, fail. It's amazing how the Systems View can be used for all manner of systems; mechanical, electrical, biological, and philosophical.
Ironically, the process of Systems Thinking has been Analyzed into its parts in an attempt to standardize and optimize it within the Business Schools. All of their proprietary terminology and paradigms have made it appear specialized, wonky, and niche. Perhaps if the Scientists and Engineers rescue Systems Thinking from the MBAs, it would have a better chance to gain popularity...
Chuck, given what you said, it is interesting to note that the differences in overall quality that I have seen are miniscule. The Consume Reports methodology is tailored to their own measurement systems. I have in the past picked products (not including cars) that were not high in their estimation, but that worked great for me and others who had them.
I prefer those measures that track actual reported defects over time. In those, as I mentioned, the probablity of experiencing a defect with any of the automobiles offered today is much lower than it was ten or twenty years ago. In addition, the difference in manufacturers rates of defects were close to zero.
I like a well laid out system as much as anyone else. On the other hand, for consumer level products, it is the results that count. Just listen to Car Talk on NPR. Most of the people who call in have foreign made cars that are older. They have problems. A car won't last forever without a lot of work. I know, I started out with small English sports cars made in the 1960's. Fun, stylish and incredibly unreliable. We often said that those parts we had the most trouble with were designed by the junior engineers. There were other parts that would last forever.
Naperlou, I agree that the differences in reliability are not all that great. Ovr the past 20 years, all automakers have improved. Twenty years ago, you could expect a vehicle to go 100,000 miles or maybe 120,000. Now I have two cars that have more than 160,000 miles on them. Now if they could only close the gap between bottom and top.
This topic was thoroughly handled by Bob Lutz in his books, "Guts" and "Bean Counters vs. Car Guys.
To some degree Alfred Sloan is at fault by structuring GM in such a compartmentalized way that the compartments got to battle each other.
But let me back up for a second and describe my education so that you will know whether or not I know what I'm saying. I went to GMI for slightly longer than 2 years before I left in disillusion and disgust at the age of 20, I was sponsored by Car Development at the Corporate Engineering Staff at the Tech Center. I studied at Arts and Crafts in Detroit and then switched to Michigan in Design School and then switched into Architcture and carried the school flag at commencement in the "Big House" in 1964 and read the Great Society speech over LBJ's right shoulder. With further studies in Urban Planning I have some 9 years of collegiate studies, never chasing degrees but after courses of specific interest to me. I passed the State Boards as an Architect which was enough for me. Few people have as broad an experience.
I also personally knew George Carramagna who Ralph Nader built his future upon. George to me was a great American hero and it was a clear case of the Bean Counters becoming absolutely evil in their quest and this precipitated the government developing enormous codes so that the Engineers had to operate within restrictions just as we Architects have had to do for years and years.
And let me say that I take deep umbrage at any notion that Detroit products are unworthy or worse. That is sheer popycock nonsense. The Volt and the Converj are some of the finest automobiles ever designed in the long history of the Automobile. And the fact that the Cruze became #1 is a direct tribute to Bob Lutz. At 42 MPG for the ECO model it's about as good as it gets for a "standard" vehicle.
I have had Hondas and Fiats that rusted out and a series of wonderful vehicles from Chrysler when Lutz was there. NO PROBLEMS except theft.
I have written for altenergy.mag for several years and have enjoyed it. I tend to think that my article on the Automotive X-Prize was one of the best and that my article on VIA is very insightful and Lutz wanted a brief engineering report.
I also tend to love EE's, one of my clients, Pierre Heftler, the Ford Family Attorney had a Masters Degree in EE and you would have been amazed to see him operate.
In the mid 60's I set about to be the Systems Analyist in one of Detroit's largest Architectural Firms and after developing the logic diagrams for the Electrical systems the Electrical Engineer told me that it was worth a PhD in EE and that if I did it for all the Departments it would be a super duper PhD. I did, but of course did not get the Phd in SD. BTW there are 21 systems in every architectural project and I's submeit that it's pretty much the same for an automobile. I'm talking specifically and not in florid generalities.
But I did schedule a 600,000sf Medical School for SUNY Stonybrook that had to open it's doors within 9 months from us receiving the program and first seeing the wooded and rolling site. BTW that's 11 football fields worth of building to help you with scale. It worked.
But back to the main thesis... Lynn Townsend ran Chrysler into the ground. He was an arrogant acountant by training and knew nothing about Automobiles.
One of my GMI fraternity brothers showed up in time magazine as being one of the great professors at Harvard teaching the "Killer Instinct" to his MBA students. Well, they did get the message that they were Gods Gift and they had absolutely no problem asserting themselves, else you might get killed.
Money became the God and lots of people did quite well foloowing that line of thinking. I'll even bet that W took his course and assumed the mantle.
So back to Bob. He outlines how he had to do battle at GM and Ford and how he got BMW going properly.
He did, and he even had to go to lengths to tighten the tolerances and get the seams lined up at GM
So I'd have to say that the Auto Industry owes a great debt to Bob because he knew exactly what had to be done and he got it done.
And he commented at a book signing that this is about his 42 years of frustration in the Auto Industry.
Asolutely it goes back to manageent not knowing what Design is or does or comprises and the same for Engineering.
Costing out the sway bar was as unconscionable as it gets. Attacking the whistle blower was as low as it got.
So having gone through all this I do think that a major transformation has ocurred and see absolutey no reason at all as to why any American really need look elsewhere.
My 84 CRX rusted out and looked like hell and never carried 4 passengers in comfort. And it certainly never got 45 MPG except for one trip back from Chicago on old Michigan Avenue.
You must have a family of dwarfs.
The US governmet also posted a Rating for the ECO of close to 50 MPG.
GM Advertises only 42 to be safe.
They obvously care and they obviously perform.
In fact, I think the Cruze actually looks better than the old CRX.
You couldn't have had a CRX as they were a two person vehicle. I'm sure that engineers can produce a powerplant/vehicle combo that can get far better than what we see now. the problem is the American public. Most people see cheap oil as their birthright and so auto makers are sort of coerced into producing poor mileage vehicles. Sort of because the bigger the vehicle, the greater the profit.
I bought a used one and thought that I cut a good deal. The next thing I find out that I am being sued and they wanted me to bring the car back.
Talked with my friend, an attorney and he said that there was this thing called a scriveners error and that the salesman made a mistake so I had to pay more for the car. I ended up with it at around 160/mo but also never went back to get another.
I had the first Prelude in Detroit before it showed up in the Mags, Papers, or anywhere. It was a very nice car but it didn't last all that long. Enjoyed my Fiat 124 coupe better, it was a beauty in a gorgeous medium Metallic gray, but it started rusting at the end of the first year.
But that is also my point... with the Cruze you can carry 4 passengers in comfort and it is much nicer than either of the others. It's the real deal and that tail light motive is on a BMW, The Chrysler 200, and some Oriental vehicles but the one on the Cruze is the best executed aesthetically. Nice and bold and large.
Bob Lutz had a slightly different slant on your point... cheap gas in America has affected an awful lot of things. Blunderbusses, Suburban Sprawl, Boondockers, etc.
If we had been forced to pay much more the course of things would have been very different.
At any rate parity is coming and we see the results of it now. The engineering is far better, astonishingly so. Powertrains are achieving economies thought impossible just a short while ago.
I was all in love with the Fords, especially the Fiesta and couldn't wait for it to show up here but then they "Americanized" it ruining a beautiful design and making it look like a Chrysler Concord. Ugh! No Way!
And my daughter fell in love with the Cruze and I began to see what she was looking at and a test drive showed me that she was right.
You are aware that they have low rolling resistance tires and special light allowy wheels aren't you? Well they took it to that extent and more. That vehicle is absolutely beautifully engineered and designed.
Don't you dare underestimate an American Engineer. Lutz unleashed them and you get to see what happened.
And he gets to see the new bosses smiling and waiving and gladhanding on his accomplishements, sitting on the sideline.
In the end it will be decided by the almighty dollar. Even as gas prices rise people will still by larger vehicles because that is what they choose to spend their money on. Even as gas prices rose last year, there was no great call to change what people were buying. And I don't see people changing what they drive because the industry tells them too. Dollars and cents will drive where we go. No pun intended...okay yes I did intend to put that pun there.
I really wanted to respond to the main question...
Are Automakers' Managers Hurting Engineering? and also ask why you were not interested in whether or not they hurt Design since that word exists in your masthead.
The answer is yes in both cases. Ever hear of an Azteck?
I see that I made a lot of typos.
I'd submit that as a design, this site needs some help.
Trying to respond to the Main topic is impossible so you have to go in and respond to something that someone else said.
The word Comment in red shows up a number of places yet clicking on them does not get you into responding to the topic, in most cases it draws a blank and you waste time trying to figure out how to respond.
Obviously a spell and gramar check should be included.
I really wanted to respond to the main question...
Are Automakers' Managers Hurting Engineering? and also ask why you were not interested in whether or not they hurt Design since that word exists in your masthead.
The answer is yes in both cases. Ever hear of an Azteck?
I see that I made a lot of typos.
I'd submit that as a design, this site needs some help.
Trying to respond to the Main topic is impossible so you have to go in and respond to something that someone else said.
The word Comment in red shows up a number of places yet clicking on them does not get you into responding to the topic, in most cases it draws a blank and you waste time trying to figure out how to respond.
Obviously a spell and gramar check should be included.
Another issue that follows due to cost reduction is life expectancy. This is a two sided benefit to the automakers in the USA. One side of it is cheaper materials meaning a lower cost to make an automobile. Price reduction to cost savings is not in par either. Most of the cost savings go to the automaker. The other flip side of the coin is the life of the product is reduced. And USA automakers see this as opportunity gained because it means more replacement parts for the cars already in sold.
Complexity of design is also an intended feature. I have had several US made cars and a Toyota. To do simple maintenance sometimes on the US cars is so frustrating you are always tempted to go to the dealer. Try changing the thermostat on an impala 2001. Also to remove the tensioner for the belt on a corolla 2005 you have to lift the engine block by half an inch???? Of course I just cut the bolt instead and torqued another bolt that was half an inch shorter. I can do that because I have vibration experience. It's actually my specialty and I know that bolt will not loosen due to vibration. Average Joe usually does not carry this knowledge around and will be forced to send it to a dealer.
If you want to get an idea of how convoluted GM is regarding engineering vs. management, read the book "All Corvettes are Red" by James Schefter. It's about how the C5 (1997) Corvette came into being - and how it almost never existed.
A lot of the C5 had to be built in secret - even from GM.
After reading this book, you will appreciate just how astounding it is that GM is able to build anything at all, let alone Corvettes.
Although this book was written many years ago, looking at the present crop of crap from GM and others, I doubt much has changed. I'm sure many of the other manufacturers have similar issues.
The book is a graphic picture of what happens when bean counters run a company instead of people with a passion for what they produce.
In the case of the Corvette, passion won, but only barely.
While many of the posts are very analytical in nature, I would add one observation, which I'm not injecting in a flippant manner. When one drives down the street, on the boulevard, or the highway, or the interstate, and one observes the autos in the adjoining lanes, what does one see? They see a lot of American vehicles that aren't the latest off the showroom floor. Yet, in your observations, how many vaunted Mercedes Benz or BMW vehicles of 5 or 10 or more years past do you count? Certainly nowhere near the number of 5 or 10 year old Chevrolets, Fords, Dodges, Plymouths, etc.
While my analysis may not be a classic statistical study, it sure does prove a point........ American vehicles ain't as bad as some of the pundits would have us believe!
@Dave Palmer >A Chinese friend of mine, who is a philosophy professor, says that Western cultures tend to be reductionist, while Asian cultures tend to be holistic.<
Based on this article, that certainly seems to apply in the automakers culture. But I believe that tendency is more pronounced in the medical viewpoint than anywhere else.
My wife recently had her gall bladder and then her appendix removed within a span of a few months. I told her that something her system isn't working right, but who do you go to see about your body as a system in our standard medical community? She ended up going to an accupuncturist who told her that her liver is overloaded and out of sync. She's been working to clean out her liver and many of the symptoms she's had for several years, that our regular doctors have had difficulty finding the root cause to, have begun to disappear. The accupuncturist was able to tell my wife the symptoms she had been experiencing several years ago, and why she was having them, in less than an hour. My wife had been going to doctors about those same problems for years, with the result that later on the "bad parts" were removed.
@williamweaver - I believe you nailed it that the magic happens when we can view a problem from both aspects, both reductionist and holistic. Unfortunatley, I think the Western mindset has a long ways to go before the acceptance of a holistic approach is commonplace. Although the world is changing ever faster...
Every engineering project starts by setting the parameters of the design. Management usually sets the bulk of the parameters - at the least, the more critical ones like cost and time.
For the most part, companies that choose their top managers out of engineering have much better quality than those that choose top managers out of sales, accounting, or other departments.
It's the difference between the "get her done" mentality and the "do it right" mentality.
I know that this comment doesn't fit neatly under this article's topic, but I'm going to gripe anyway. My 1984 Honda CRX got better gas mileage than any cars built today. It got between 45 and 50 local and 58 to 61 on the highway and it had a kludge carburetor setup. We're past peak oil, and the car companies can't produce far better mileage with today's far more sophisticated technology? Come on!
Whining about "quality" continues to miss the bigger problem, that we are wasting resources that carry very heavy consequences. But as most Americans don't believe in anything other than failed free market ideology, I suppose the fact that today's cars are worse performers than a 1984 design doesn't matter in their minds. After all, CEOs drive teir engineers to meet customer demand and customers only complain about high gas prices because they're clueless.
Failed free market? The auto industry hasn't operated in a free market in decades. If it did I might be driving a diesel car getting 100 mpg burning fuel made from garbage squeezings. Regulation stifles innovation.
Regulation is a double-edged sword, but when applied correctly produces better results than a free market, as the market is people and they don't care about consequences, until it's too late.
The fact is that free market theory is a failed theory is proven by the existence of financial crises and bubbles. This is simply fact. Then there's your point that free markets really don't and can't exist, except in small arenas, precisely because people use their clout to improve their situation. Real human nature refutes ideology about human nature.
From what I've heard there are designs for power plants providing far higher mileage, but they are not produced for a number of reasons, including the fact that the market is more concerned about power and speed and having the government supply them with cheap fuel. Ah, the delusion and ignorance of the market! Therefore, there's little impetus for manufacturers to produce high mileage vehicles, which results in pressures to extract more of a finite resource at ever increasing financial and environmental costs.
I agree that we have failed policies in regulating the auto and energy industries but disagree with it being called a failure of the "free market". I call it the failed policies of greedy politicians making backroom deals with greedy industrialists with the "regulations" being used to squeeze out inovative competition.
One of the tenets of free market theory is that the freer the market, the more accurate the price. The problem is that free markets aren't controlled by the assumptions made by economists and so greed overpowers the mechanism that is supposed to provide negative feedback required to control prices. Therefore, greed and excessive optimism takes over and prices rise until collapse, which directly refutes free market theory.
Now that is in no way implying that a market must be heavily regulated, only to the point that it provides the required negative feedback to control what Greenspan defined as irrational exuberance. So, we need rational, good sense regulation in every market.
In line with the auto market, regulating that safety and efficiency be design considerations is good. Also, forcing manufacturers to correct design flaws is good too. the problem is doing it correctly to not stifle beneficial innovation.
Good points, Jeff. I think we're seeing that optimism now in the gasoline market. At-the-pump gas prices have gone up about 20 percent in the last coule months, while the cost of oil is only up about 6 or 7 percent. Right now a barrel of oil is only $103, while gas is pushing $4.00. Two or three months ago, gas was about $2.75 while oil was about $98.
Rob: Supposedly the "reason" why gasoline is so highly priced currently is because they're in the midst of the winter to summer changeover mode @ the refineries, AND because there are plans in place to PERMANENTLY close at least one (or more) domestic refineries, including one on the East Coast (NJ or PA?) facility.
However, we've also heard the news reports, etal. in which it has been shown that the industry is EXPORTING domestically-produced gasoline to foreign depots.
Is this a contrivance? Is it a conspiracy? Is it collusion? Who knows! But, we're all paying the price, NO pun intended!
I didn't realize that, Old Curmudgeon, Just over the weekend, oil went down again, now to $102, while gas prices rose again. I understand there is also speculation going on.
Rob: And that's another reason why there is so much dissent in the discussion about crude prices vs. gasoline prices. The price of crude for the past several months has hovered around the $105/bbl. figure, yet the price of gasoline continues to rise at a rate of at least a nickel a week, sometimes more. There doesn't seem to be a coherent explanation for this; one could make an argument that this flies in the face of the "Law of Supply & Demand" of classic Economics 101. It almost seems that it is more beholden to the Law of Expedient Political Rhetoric".
I agree, Old Curmudgeon. I'm confused by the :speculation" agruement. I can understnad speculating on crude and thus driving up the price. But can you speculation as refined gasoline? The price of crude is not the problem. The price of crude has only gone up about 5%, while the price of gas has gone up nearly 30%. And that's in Europe as well, not just in North America.
Rob: I'm NOT a stock market maven myself. That's what I pay a financial whiz kid to do it for me, BUT it is my undestanding that there ARE speculators that will (hedge a) "bet" on just about anything that one can dream up, including where a fly will land at the airport in Singapore. So, it would seem to me that there also ARE speculators that can cause the price of gasoline & other direct petroleum distillates to fluctuate at will.
I guess you're right, Old Curmudgeon. Yet it does seem odd that the price of gasoline is moving at a different trajectory than the price of oil. By simple logic, at some point there would be some equalization.
One particularly key statement, as the article concludes, is copied and re-pasted here:
"In contrast, North American companies tend to appease stockholders who want short-term profits -- often at the expense of long-term reliability, he said. As a result, the focus shifts to cost-cutting, instead of to engineering and quality."
This statement applies to a bigger picture than automotive only.It is the absolutely a myopic American view of the dollar. When, oh when, will the American Corporation ever learn TRUE value-? The article speaks for itself. Systems Engineering, for example.
I agree with you, JimT. It seems that American companies are too often at the mercy of stockholders, causing CEOs to get fired frequently and causing executives to seek short term profits over long-term goals.
The assertion about designing for a three year product life is fairly accurate, at least it was for Chrysler while I was there. For starters, the top managers did seem to be accounting types, not engineers. But one indicator oof the problem was the reality that while the managers drove assigned cars so that, at least in theory, they could see any problems, all of those cars were inspected and serviced by mechanics EVERY DAY! The explanation that I got from our department manager was that nobody ever wanted thier part to be noticed as a problem by the upper management. I don't know what would have happened if there had been a problem noticed, but it would probably make somebodies career shorter or less rewarding. Now with that kind of culture and mindset, the policy makers never ever saw any reason to push for any changes.
One of the big weaknesses of having a company managed by accounting types is it comes down completely to measureable by dollars and cents. How can one eqquate the value of customer perception of a brand name? It cannot be quantified. But it is in my opinion more valuable than dollars and cents.
The other part about this is management must reward those that find and address issues rather than punish them by having them fix their mistakes while working on the other stuff they should be doing. From the top down bringing issues to the table have to be viewed as a call for help not a reason to punish
It is hard to beat the Japanese system methodology. This philosophy carries over to most items made in Japan not just cars. It allows for some additional tolerance with individual parts as long as the system works.
I agree that it is not just in the car industry. You can add electronics and now eve n appliances to that list of produccts that are manufactured that way. At least sort of. You do have to be aware that there are different Asian countries and I don't think they all have that same level of quality engineering. Especially, when it comes to the component level. Some of my largest headaches have come from Asian component suppliers.
It is agreed that not all Asian cultures have the same philosophy. Companies 5000 miles away are hard to hold accountable for quality issues and sometimes the companies have actually folded before the container arrives at its final destination.
Miller has it right about stockholders and the almighty quarterly profits drive. Monthly and quarterly short term profits are the main driver of about all upper management decisions made.IT is the greed thing, the same greed thast bought us the mortgage company bust and the toxic assets problems. Probably grred will destroy this great nation, unless it destroys one of the EU nations and we learn by watching. The problem is that greed and moral corruption are opposite sides of the same coin, and so it is not a large step from greedy decisions that may be legal to greedy decisions that are not legal. It sure sounds gloomy, doesn't it.
I have to admit that I'm okay with profit and even a little bit of greed. I think where so many companies fall short is in their focus on the short term. Too many CEOs fear a quick exit, so they focus on the short term and ignore the long-term consequences. I don't understand why a bond of trust between consumer and automaker -- built over a long period of time -- should be deemed less profitable.
The explanation for the increase in gas prices is probably similar to the explanation of why Dogbert,(evil HR director), in the Dilbert comic strip, explains why he does such evil things. The answer: "Because I can". Evil needs no additional motivation. YES, I certainly am being judgemental.
The problem is not that "we are addicted to oil", the reason is that we are quite attached to the degree of personal freedom that we have available to us by reason of our high level of personal mobility. That is, we can jump in our car and go almost anywhere at almost any time. In huge sections of the developed world you can't do that. As Americans, we are indeed addicted to personal freedom. Of course, that does include the freedom to do things that some say is not good for us.
Of course, on some rare occasions even engineers may make mistakes. That is what separates us from MBAs; they always make mistakes.
Sad story to hear, especially our loved American cars were at the bottom of engineering. But I do agree of what was said that Japanese and other Asian cars have a better lay-out of engine parts and they are "user-friendly" and is manageable with do it yourself auto repair. Hope those other bmws, and chevys cope up and do some remodeling.
I retired from one of the "majors" in the appliance industry. The company I worked for had component managers for: elements, gas-fired burners, platform structures, maintops, electronic controls, etc etc. These engineers knew their components but it was up the to platform manager and program leaders to "mesh" these components into the proper package to provide a workable appliance. All too often, that did not happen with any real ease. Schedules were king and designs sometimes suffered due to unrealistic schedules. There did not seem to be the "systems" approach to an overall assembly of components. The products were safe but not very competitive with West European designs--at least when reliability was concerned. It seems to me we are looking at a very similar problem with the American Auto industry.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 3
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
23 
