Detroit Talking And Walking Like They Can Win

Interesting reading....

TOM WALSH: Detroit can believe - and win

August 29, 2003

BY TOM WALSH FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

Enough already.

Are you tired of hearing about the fabulous Toyota production system, the great Honda engines, the superb German engineering of Mercedes and BMW? The unbeatable quality of Lexus?

Yeah, me too.

I don't believe for a minute that assembly line workers in Wixom or Detroit are inferior to assembly line workers in Japan, Germany, Georgetown, Ky., or Marysville, Ohio. And I don't believe that engineers in Tokyo or Bavaria are smarter than engineers in Warren or Dearborn.

But I wonder . . .

Do the hourly workers and engineers and designers at General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group believe their companies are as good as Toyota, Honda, Nissan and BMW?

I suspect not.

Many GM, Ford and Chrysler workers, judging from my e-mail, don't believe they play on teams as good as their main rivals. And it's no wonder.

I've sat in the offices of GM executives who proudly display Toyota logo-wear as a sign of the superior performance that their own troops should emulate.

I read in my own newspaper that Chrysler's top labor negotiator says the southern United States factories of Toyota, Nissan, BMW and others have superior business models.

I've watched hangdog Detroit auto executives shrug like henpecked husbands as Wall Street analysts scold them about incentive costs and extol the efficiencies of their competitors.

Enough already. It's time to stop with the hand-wringing and the apologizing. It's time to go kick some butt.

This is not some jingoistic call to rally Team USA. And I mean no disrespect to Toyota, Honda, BMW, Nissan, Mitsubishi and Hyundai. They're entitled to play on our continent if we play on theirs.

Those companies deserve our respect. They should not, however, be treated with reverence or held in awe.

Could the Red Wings have won those Stanley Cups if the players treated Patrick Roy and other opposing goalies with reverence and awe? Could the Detroit Pistons have won those 1989-90 titles by revering the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers as unbeatable foes?

No, of course not. In order to win, a team's coaches and players must believe they can win. And they must talk and walk like they can win.

One company steps up Thankfully, GM is starting to flex some butt-kicking muscle. (Forget about Ford and Chrysler for now; Ford is only midway through a massive restructuring and DaimlerChrysler is still in a post-merger identity crisis).

GM leaders aren't talking or walking too boldly yet; they're like a woozy boxer just risen from the canvas after a knockdown. But they are no longer ashamed of themselves or their company name.

Just 13 years ago, the new Saturn brand was pitched as everything its stodgy parent GM was not -- friendly, flexible, modern. The GM affiliation was seen as a liability, not an asset. But that's changing.

About three years ago, CEO Rick Wagoner started asking his own people what the GM brand stood for. They had no clue, collectively. Since then, GM has quietly, but rigorously, gone about forging a concept for the corporate brand that comes down to three words: Powerful, Engaging and Dynamic. Every vehicle GM builds should bring those words to mind. Every TV ad, every auto show display should evoke the same words.

After Sept. 11, 2001, when the "Keep America Rolling" campaign of no-interest loans caught the public imagination, the notion took hold that heavier marketing use of the GM brand name could boost sales of the individual vehicle brands.

GM won't talk about the size of its ad budget, reportedly around $200 million last year, except to say that it's growing.

From GM's 24-hour test drive ad campaign earlier this summer to the mid-August rollout of its revamped

formatting link
Web site, the company is clearly wielding the GM corporate brand more forcefully as a tool to drive customers into Chevy, Cadillac and other showrooms.

After a long decline, GM has made major strides in quality improvement and customer and dealer satisfaction. Those gains, and aggressive rebates, helped boost GM's market share the past two years.

In a newspaper and magazine ad campaign this summer dubbed "Road to Redemption," GM apologizes for its three decades of wandering in the automotive wilderness and invites long-lost customers to return.

OK, we get it. Detroit's automotive leadership isn't in denial anymore.

But enough already with the apologies. Enough already with all the fawning praise of Toyota and the other transplants.

If GM wants to remain the world's largest automaker, if Ford and Chrysler and the UAW want to survive and thrive, they need to talk and walk like they believe they can win.

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

Reply to
Patrick
Loading thread data ...

The problem with the US manufacturers is simply the management. Management of big US corporations is simply not focused on the product. They are focused on making their next bonus milestone.

Let me explain it this way, the manager, the guy who was promoted through the marketing or finance ranks oversees a series of engineering managers who were promoted to the level of their incompentence. It is very rare for a good technical engineer to ever get beyond the rank of lead, if he gets to that level. Now the project will have various dates that need to be made. These will consist of internal metrics such as the product will have it's first pilot build on a given date, pass such and such testing on a given date etc. All internal dates that are really meaningless since the only big one is getting the product out to the market on time. anyway my comment aside, these managers get bonuses or are graded on making these internal dates.

So let's say there is a design decision that has to be made. Choice a) means fixing it right, missing the internal date but avoiding later delays, still making the ship date, and having a better product. Choice b) is a quick kludge. It will make the internal date but comprises the product as whole in some shape or form.

Guess what management chooses in a big US corporation. (hint, a) doesn't put money in any of their pockets)

Reply to
Brent P

It does but only in the longer term. And therein lies the problem. Large US Corporations almost always focus on the short term goal to the detriment of the longer term bigger payoff. I've often wondered if that isn't the inherent problem that is driven by the political process which must by necessity never focus beyond the next election date or in the case of corporations beyond the next AGM.

Reply to
Richard

I blame the stock market for a lot of this "problem". Today's businesses is not about make products. Its all about what the stock price is. A good (or bad) product doesn't seem to have the meaning it use to when a company was privately owned. With a privately owned company it better make the best product to keep itself a float. Now if the stock value starts to drop a company will do some BS (like laying off US workers and moving to China) to give back wall street its warm and fuzzy feeling.

MadDAWG

Reply to
MadDAWG

You are exactly right. The "market" in this country demands public companies to produce higher profits every quarter and higher stock prices to match. This does not allow a company to fully respond to rapidly changing customer demands or technology.

I ran a product business for 20 years and always had a long term vision. I was always willing to forego some of today's profits to build tomorrow's profitable products. And since this approach was very successful, I always had the complete support of the owners.

Then through a series of buy-outs we became a large public company. I was no longer allowed to focus on the future, only the current quarter's results mattered. Instead of focusing on the business and actually making the business better, I had to spend my time trying to make the quarter "look" good. The hand writing was on the wall and I soon resigned my position as VP. The profitable business that I once ran, lost its product focus and died a miserable death.

LJH

95GT

Reply to
Larry Hepinstall

Well do not use the Dirtroit Dead Thiings as a example...Go Avs !

Paul

Reply to
Paul Wampler

Did Generic Motors come to this battle cry before or after they decided to use *HONDA* engines in the next line of Saturn Vues. I own a Saturn L300 for the wife, and the 3.2l V6 that is in there now (a GM/Saturn/Opel/Saab engine) is a fine powerplant. It is also used in the Saturn Vue. There is absolutely no excuse for importing an engine. It's an admission that they are not *unable* to make quality parts for the U.S., they are just unwilling.

Isn't it sad that GM produces the 5L80E transmission for BMWs with

5speed automatics? How many U.S. cars are graced with that transmission?

- Vic

2kGT 5m blk suspension upgrades
formatting link
Reply to
Victor DiMichina

Victor DiMichina opined in news:3F58A182.2060905@pixel_no_spammagicfx.com:

Excuse me! That Honda engine is built rat'cheer in Ohio.

Here's the story on it.

formatting link

Yes it is... but it's probably too expensive for domestic installation.. and since my father and two brothers, as employees of Frigidaire-then-Harrison, built the A/C compressors for LOTS of cars OTHER than GM, I know that there are TONS of reasons why GM might rather buy outside.

Production #'s before Quality, "Quality Circle" meetings being a joke, millwrights NOT listening to line workers' suggestions on die setup (ran up against THAT one myself when I worked at GM) Overinfluential Unions protecting rights of drug dealers in plants rather than acting as an intermediary for employees with REAL gripes...

It goes on and on.

Reply to
Backyard Mechanic

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.