Hi, Jones, You are right, we don't generally disagree, and I would add a couple of comments:
1. Though Ford and GM are 'giant' and -- yes -- have or had the resources needed to reorient themselves to the changing nature of the world and American automotive markets, they failed utterly to do so, I think, more for reasons of internal inertia than individual stupidity. My general proposition is that when systems, like corporations, become 'too big' that due to the internal dynamics of bigness they come to act overall at a mediocre level of intelligence. Partly it is a matter of Reverting to the Mean, and partly a matter of there being only so many genuinely brilliant leaders and with size their net impact is diluted by the inevitable bulk of mediocre people in a large corporation. Partly it is a matter of administrative systems becoming so bulky and unwieldy that taking action and decision-making are themselves compromised by bureaucratic values and ponderous processes. Large complex systems, IF THEY ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REQUISITE VARIETY, lose the agility that a company will require to meet structural changes in its markets. It seems to me that clearly this is what happened in the US automotive industry. (Including Chrysler, despite the amusing and falsely reassuring fireworks proffered by Lee Iacocca.) 2. Is this a matter for management? Yes, absolutely. But here is the problem: management, smart as it may be individually, can itself become so big and systemically paralyzed that management itself can no longer perform at any level of excellence. 3. Nor is it a matter of engineering excellence being 'ignored' by management: indeed, I suspect that many of the senior management that we can rightly be critical of, though I would hope sympathetically so given the systemic inertia caused by size and complexity, were indeed drawn directly out of the ranks of the engineering group. 4. Yup, in the end, it is the responsibility of management to deal with these issues, and in the end US automotive management failed utterly to do so. But it is not, in my opinion, due to their 'stupidity' but to their lack of comprehension of the organizational dynamics that had taken over their very large and initially successful companies. And in fairness to them, I would suggest that very few American (or other) executives understand these dynamics. We have seen failures equal to that of the US automotive industry in other industries (e.g. the newspapers, household appliances, computers (with the wonderful exception of Apple -- that lean and mean agile machine), shipbuilding, steel, etc. We will, alas, see more failures, until American management begins to study the dynamics I allude to. And, no, Ford and GM have not been clients of mine. Unfortunately. Cheers, Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:39 PM To: vortex Subject: [Vo]:Re: "Tooo" obvious for Detroit? SNIP Let me say that in the context of GM and Ford, they are giant companies which do not, or should not, suffer those same "tired realities" which do keep most of society from moving ahead at full pace ... at least they only suffer from what is self-imposed by internal stupidity. IOW - They have the money (or at least the good credit ;-) which would allow them to pursue a grander vision, rather than the tunnel vision of maximizing short term profitability. IOW the "competing priorities" of Ford and GM are those which are imposed by their own incompetent management. Perhaps Lawrence, who may have some contact with these companies, will be far more diplomatic on that general assessment, but he can speak for himself. And- as to their internal disagreements (Ford and GM) these too are due precisely the result of the shortsighted corporate culture in which they chose to perpetuate and wallow - this is a culture where the bottom line, not the customer nor the environment, nor the public's concerns, predominate. In short, there may be only a small net disagreement between my view and that of Lawrence, except that he may be more forgiving of high level management at these companies. And yes - it is too easy to be critical, or make untested suggestions, from an "armchair" perspective... and that is one reason that in the original posting, instead of only complaining, I chose to introduce a concept which in fact, I know that they have been exposed-to in the past, but have declined to pursue. How do I know this? Well, both companies own patents which go part of the way there, and in addition I have also in the past submitted RFPs to both companies, which they declined, but for reasons which contradict what their own patents and IP claim to be accurate. IOW there is a massive "high level disconnect" at both companies, between management and what little creative staff they can tolerate- and ample evidence of "Peter-Principle-type" incompetence, deserving of public scorn- even by "Monday morning quarterbacks"... ... ain't hindsight great? 20-20 as they say. Jones
