Jump to content

The Way Forward Part II


Recommended Posts

Reasons they are in a mess:

 

Gas prices

Thinking all America wanted BOF SUV's

Keeping the Turus lame, dull, forgettable

Dumping it into fleets

cheap crappy parts

crooked dealers

'who cares' attitude

ignoring segments other than big trucks

thinking Focus would be good enough to last 8 years

ignoring import competition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he did a decent job. Chrysler's recovery was an inch deep. It involved no major changes in product planning or manufacturing. Just flashier stuff. With more Mercedes parts. When you have a progressive disease, you can only treat the symptoms so long.

 

No, I don't. And the lawsuits against Ford do not involved the MEANS of termination, they challenge the grounds. Ford's termination procedure is SOP at almost every Fortune 500 corporation out there, and it has been upheld in court. Terminating someone is intentional infliction of emotional distress. If Ford's process imposed excessive emotional distress (e.g. announcing over PA systems the names of those terminated, strip searches for confidential materials, 'drumming' someone out, letting other people know the reason for the termination, etc. those all involve unreasonable infliction of emotional distress), then there would be problems. But since, as mentioned, Ford's methods impose about the same amount of distress as methods used almost everywhere else...

 

Also, on gas prices... I suspect that we may see a bubble burst in oil prices at some point in time. However, it is not prudent for Ford (most dependent on SUVs and trucks of the Big 3) to act on such assumptions. They need to diversify now.

 

Well that "flashier stuff" has kept Chrysler in the game, and at the end of the day, that is what sells vehichles.

 

You don't think that escorting people out in front of their peers with five minutes notice is not akin to announcing on the PA to the office they have been fired?

 

Diversification is one thing, and that would be good. This adminstration's MO has been to cut and not replace- thus sending buyers to competitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that "flashier stuff" has kept Chrysler in the game, and at the end of the day, that is what sells vehichles.

 

You don't think that escorting people out in front of their peers with five minutes notice is not akin to announcing on the PA to the office they have been fired?

 

Diversification is one thing, and that would be good. This adminstration's MO has been to cut and not replace- thus sending buyers to competitors.

Yeah. That flashier stuff has also been hit and miss. Products that were mega-hits (300C) were hits with unexpected consumer groups. The Sebring looks like terrible, the Magnum is a dud. The Caliber is solid, but both its Jeep variants look remarkably ill-conceived. I don't quite see the point of the Dodge Nitro, and in toto, DCX's new vehicle launches this year seem to be rather questionable. Their number certainly can't be disputed, but their viability can.

 

--

 

As I've said before, that means of termination is SOP at almost every Fortune 500 company. Divergence from it invites lawsuits.

 

--

 

"This administration"? You mean the adminstration that replaced the Taurus with two sedans and a crossover, or do you perhaps mean the administration that replaced the Contour and Escort with nothing at all?

Edited by RichardJensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. That flashier stuff has also been hit and miss. Products that were mega-hits (300C) were hits with unexpected consumer groups. The Sebring looks like terrible, the Magnum is a dud. The Caliber is solid, but both its Jeep variants look remarkably ill-conceived. I don't quite see the point of the Dodge Nitro, and in toto, DCX's new vehicle launches this year seem to be rather questionable. Their number certainly can't be disputed, but their viability can.

 

--

 

As I've said before, that means of termination is SOP at almost every Fortune 500 company. Divergence from it invites lawsuits.

 

--

 

"This administration"? You mean the adminstration that replaced the Taurus with two sedans and a crossover, or do you perhaps mean the administration that replaced the Contour and Escort with nothing at all?

 

I mean the adminstration and Board overseen by Bill Ford Junior- the same one that saw market share fall by 30 percent since the beginning of his tenure. :titanic:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean the adminstration and Board overseen by Bill Ford Junior- the same one that saw market share fall by 30 percent since the beginning of his tenure.

From 2001 to 2006? I think your numbers are a bit off. I think it's been something less than a 25% drop in market share, but that's splitting hairs at this point.

 

First of all. What was Ford's product lead time in 2000? It was something like 5 years.

 

Okay. Five years to develop new product. This was under the "Ford 2000" system.

 

So. That means that the soonest you could have expected--under Bill Ford's tenure--to see new product would be like, this year.

 

I mean think about that. In 2000 Ford was taking 60 months to develop a car from project approval to Job 1 (at least per the WSJ).

 

60 months.

 

So. Obviously there were systemic issues that Bill Ford inherited.

 

Furthermore, quality had been allowed to deteriorate to the point where Ford's was worst of the Big Three.

 

Now. You tell me. Where do you start? And please, be specific.. Don't say "fire the idiots", because, see, you're not going to know who the idiots are. And you're not going to know whether you can trust the people that tell you who the idiots are.

 

I don't think you grasp how truly FUBAR Ford was in 2000/2001. Their new car cupboard was bare. I mean empty. There was NOTHING there. NOTHING. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Nada. Zilch. Bupkus. NO NEW PASSENGER CARS, kemosabe. Zero new car product. I mean what they had to kick around in 2000 was the idea that they could build cars off the S80 platform.

 

That's it.

 

Ford had NOTHING in 2000. NOTHING. ZILCH.

 

Now, you tell me what you would've done differently.

 

I mean, really, you kick out Jac Nasser, and you call your product development guys in and say, "so what new cars are we working on?" and they kind of stare at each other and dig their shoes in the carpet, and look at their feet and say, "well, we really don't have any new cars"

 

So, yeah, what do you do for the next five years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From 2001 to 2006? I think your numbers are a bit off. I think it's been something less than a 25% drop in market share, but that's splitting hairs at this point.

 

First of all. What was Ford's product lead time in 2000? It was something like 5 years.

 

Okay. Five years to develop new product. This was under the "Ford 2000" system.

 

So. That means that the soonest you could have expected--under Bill Ford's tenure--to see new product would be like, this year.

 

I mean think about that. In 2000 Ford was taking 60 months to develop a car from project approval to Job 1 (at least per the WSJ).

 

60 months.

 

So. Obviously there were systemic issues that Bill Ford inherited.

 

Furthermore, quality had been allowed to deteriorate to the point where Ford's was worst of the Big Three.

 

Now. You tell me. Where do you start? And please, be specific.. Don't say "fire the idiots", because, see, you're not going to know who the idiots are. And you're not going to know whether you can trust the people that tell you who the idiots are.

 

I don't think you grasp how truly FUBAR Ford was in 2000/2001. Their new car cupboard was bare. I mean empty. There was NOTHING there. NOTHING. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Nada. Zilch. Bupkus. NO NEW PASSENGER CARS, kemosabe. Zero new car product. I mean what they had to kick around in 2000 was the idea that they could build cars off the S80 platform.

 

That's it.

 

Ford had NOTHING in 2000. NOTHING. ZILCH.

 

Now, you tell me what you would've done differently.

 

I mean, really, you kick out Jac Nasser, and you call your product development guys in and say, "so what new cars are we working on?" and they kind of stare at each other and dig their shoes in the carpet, and look at their feet and say, "well, we really don't have any new cars"

 

So, yeah, what do you do for the next five years?

 

Wasn't Junior on the board since 1996? If so it was his job to make sure plans were on track.

 

Nevertheless, in answer to your question, in 2000 Ford was still making money and were the leaders in the midsize segment, compact pickups, SUVs, and Luxury cars for that matter. All Junior had to do was keep the momentum. If the product portfolio was bare, it was his job to say "look guys, we have 30 months to redo our lineup from top to bottom." At the time, Ford had the money. 60 months, even in 2000, was a hooribly unacceptable time frame to bring a vehichle out. Since they did not have the talent in-house, it was Junior's job to find it on the outside. That was not done, and we are in the mess we are today because of it. ANd do not say that it could not be done- Chrysler and Nissan turned the portfolios around in under three years. Love the cars or hate them. at least they had something fresh. Of all the new products that have come out since 2000, only the Mustang, and the F150 were leaders. The rest- the 500/Montego, Freestar, Freestyle, were failures- they fell way short of their sales goals. The Explorer and Fusion/Milan, are competitive, and that is not a slam on them- in this brutal market it is a compliment. However, what got Ford to numer one in the late 1980s and early 1990s (in terms of revenue) was best-in-class styling and quality. The ONLY way Ford is going to come back is with those two elements. Period. If I had to choose one or the other, sorry, it would be styling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the product portfolio was bare, it was his job to say "look guys, we have 30 months to redo our lineup from top to bottom."

And then what?

 

Ford of Europe got turned around in about 3-4 years (it too was in pretty sad shape in 2001).

 

So, what's the deal with NA?

 

Ford NA couldn't even properly launch products in 2001. Once again, I believe your simplistic "we have 30 months to redo our lineup" solution illustrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.

 

Do you think Bill Ford DIDN'T want the lineup redone in 30 months? I mean, if you're going to assert that as the smarter course of action, and given that it is a supremely obvious choice as well, why do you think it didn't happen? Do you think it was because Bill Ford saw a huge hole in the product lineup and thought, "Oh well, that's no big deal. We're not in business to sell cars anyway?"

 

Your response fails to convince me simply because it would've been the first response of anyone in Bill's shoes: We need new product and we need it now.

 

Question becomes, why didn't he get it?

 

And a corollary. Why do you think he did not, at the time, completely strip the Product Development office and rebuild it?

Edited by RichardJensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From 2001 to 2006? I think your numbers are a bit off. I think it's been something less than a 25% drop in market share, but that's splitting hairs at this point.

 

First of all. What was Ford's product lead time in 2000? It was something like 5 years.

 

Okay. Five years to develop new product. This was under the "Ford 2000" system.

 

So. That means that the soonest you could have expected--under Bill Ford's tenure--to see new product would be like, this year.

 

I mean think about that. In 2000 Ford was taking 60 months to develop a car from project approval to Job 1 (at least per the WSJ).

 

60 months.

 

So. Obviously there were systemic issues that Bill Ford inherited.

 

Furthermore, quality had been allowed to deteriorate to the point where Ford's was worst of the Big Three.

 

Now. You tell me. Where do you start? And please, be specific.. Don't say "fire the idiots", because, see, you're not going to know who the idiots are. And you're not going to know whether you can trust the people that tell you who the idiots are.

 

I don't think you grasp how truly FUBAR Ford was in 2000/2001. Their new car cupboard was bare. I mean empty. There was NOTHING there. NOTHING. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Nada. Zilch. Bupkus. NO NEW PASSENGER CARS, kemosabe. Zero new car product. I mean what they had to kick around in 2000 was the idea that they could build cars off the S80 platform.

 

That's it.

 

Ford had NOTHING in 2000. NOTHING. ZILCH.

 

Now, you tell me what you would've done differently.

 

I mean, really, you kick out Jac Nasser, and you call your product development guys in and say, "so what new cars are we working on?" and they kind of stare at each other and dig their shoes in the carpet, and look at their feet and say, "well, we really don't have any new cars"

 

So, yeah, what do you do for the next five years?

 

I don't think I've ever seen Richard THIS talkative before :blah:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's what got Chrysler where they are today.

You are correct. They have a few hot models to which the press loves, and thousands of pickups and SUVs that they now must "fire sale" off because they didn't want to slow production on them.

 

Chrysler had the same amount of time to become less dependant on trucks that Ford did and they dropped the ball too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chrysler had the same amount of time to become less dependant on trucks that Ford did and they dropped the ball too.

 

 

But due to management in the early 1990's we are left with what we have now...an overdepence on SUVs and a massive loss in sales due to ignoring the car market from the Mid-1990's till recently. Ford will be far better off product-wise in 2008 then they have been in the past 15 years.

 

 

 

Gas prices are a bummer. Unfortunately in Friday's Wall Street Journal, Don LeClaire head beancounter stated that new product is one of the areas that is being targeted for reduction.

 

All depends, I would expect some product to be axed, along the line of products that aren't going to truly needed, such as a Lincoln convertible, A high performance Pickup truck etc etc, but I really doubt that something as important as the B-cars, the C2 plant and car not being followed though with, because Ford would be truly shooting themselves in the foot.

 

As for GM, they are so deep in shit that they can blame all their problems on the devil or something equally as reduculous and still wouldn't be able to raise their stock price. They are a slow moving monolith that is still far from being out of the woods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Football fan .... you really keep forgetting that Ford is not President of Ford Americas - he is the pres of Ford Motor Company - his job was to turn over the whole effing ship, not just one piece of it ....

 

 

thus his main job was to have people in place in each division to to do the work (day to day) while he made sure they are doing a good job and that they have the means to do a good job.... and what did he do ... .Ford OE is in a much better shape than in 2000, Mazda, Ford Latin America, Volvo, Land Rover, Aston.... they all were overhauled bottom up, got new product, or new processes in place to suport better product, and all are profictable ...

 

It is my assertion that Ford was never allowed to be in charge of Ford NA - the Board just did not let him make radicale changes in the core market - so he focused the 2002 restructuring on quality, product cycle and other structural changes, that were allowed to be done - not actual products ....

 

So the board and with their heads up their rear ends in 2003 decided not to join FoMoCo on developing C1 platform ...and made many otherbad decisions - Bill Ford should have definitely been forcefull enough to prevent these decisions, but I owld argue that he had his hands full with the rest of the company, and I guess believed that if he showed that he can do it elsewhere and show he can be sucessful, they will finally let him run the core market ....

 

That is my understanding of the Ford situation from my outsider perspective, and I believe I am correct, but I am willing to discuss this, and be corrected by pwoplw that know more.

 

Igor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my assertion that Ford was never allowed to be in charge of Ford NA

It is rather interesting that every other part of Ford has been nursed back to health (FoE, LR, Mazda, SA, Asia), except Jaguar and North America. Jaguar, I would argue, is on its way back to health (albeit with smaller volumes which makes it look like it's getting worse).

 

I differ from Igor in assessing what happened in North America... My theory is that Ford paid too much attention to Veeps and execs that insisted that the problems with NA product design could be solved without a major overhaul. Bill Ford is very conservative, and Ford has had very conservative management over the last five decades (this is both a strength and a weakness). Absent compelling evidence that NA product development problems were so endemic that the only fix involved a massive overhaul, Bill Ford gave his PD lieutenants opportunity to fix the glaring problems that existed.

 

However, it became obvious in c. 2003-2004 that foremost among the problems with Ford's product development was a tendency among the higherups in the various units to blame other people for PD problems.

 

Anne Stevens, who is Kuzak's immediate supervisor (chief operating officer, NA), is not one to let bucks get passed. Selection of her as COO Americas is about as important as making Fields President, Americas. Kuzak, who was instrumental in C1 is an ideal selection as Bill Ford does what every Ford CEO since Petersen failed to do: impose a rational and sustainable structure on NA product development.

 

In reviewing Bill Ford's tenure thus far, there are two failings that have severely impacted Ford's performance and image. 1) He has more than once made public statements he has had to back away from, and 2) He did not perceive the truly dysfunctional state of NA product development systems in 2001.

 

Had Bill Ford overturned the stagnant, feuding, and autocratic NA PD unit in 2002, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Bill's failure to move quickly and decisively there has undoubtedly cost Ford sales, market share, and profits.

 

On the other hand, it seems unlikely that any other executive could've accomplished what Bill has accomplished, in stepping into Nasser's shoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But due to management in the early 1990's we are left with what we have now...an overdepence on SUVs and a massive loss in sales due to ignoring the car market from the Mid-1990's till recently. Ford will be far better off product-wise in 2008 then they have been in the past 15 years.

All depends, I would expect some product to be axed, along the line of products that aren't going to truly needed, such as a Lincoln convertible, A high performance Pickup truck etc etc, but I really doubt that something as important as the B-cars, the C2 plant and car not being followed though with, because Ford would be truly shooting themselves in the foot.

 

As for GM, they are so deep in shit that they can blame all their problems on the devil or something equally as reduculous and still wouldn't be able to raise their stock price. They are a slow moving monolith that is still far from being out of the woods.

 

I do see Ford dropping a Lincoln convertable (and perhaps the whole Mercury brand). But I do not see them builing a new plant for the C2. It more than likely will go to Wayne when the time comes- hopefully!

 

Football fan .... you really keep forgetting that Ford is not President of Ford Americas - he is the pres of Ford Motor Company - his job was to turn over the whole effing ship, not just one piece of it ....

thus his main job was to have people in place in each division to to do the work (day to day) while he made sure they are doing a good job and that they have the means to do a good job.... and what did he do ... .Ford OE is in a much better shape than in 2000, Mazda, Ford Latin America, Volvo, Land Rover, Aston.... they all were overhauled bottom up, got new product, or new processes in place to suport better product, and all are profictable ...

 

It is my assertion that Ford was never allowed to be in charge of Ford NA - the Board just did not let him make radicale changes in the core market - so he focused the 2002 restructuring on quality, product cycle and other structural changes, that were allowed to be done - not actual products ....

 

So the board and with their heads up their rear ends in 2003 decided not to join FoMoCo on developing C1 platform ...and made many otherbad decisions - Bill Ford should have definitely been forcefull enough to prevent these decisions, but I owld argue that he had his hands full with the rest of the company, and I guess believed that if he showed that he can do it elsewhere and show he can be sucessful, they will finally let him run the core market ....

 

That is my understanding of the Ford situation from my outsider perspective, and I believe I am correct, but I am willing to discuss this, and be corrected by pwoplw that know more.

 

Igor

 

Igor:

 

Good post, but I do have to rebut your assertion with the first sentence. Bottom line, if Ford NA is one of the areas you oversee, there should have been more tabs on it. As the saying goes- fair or not- the "Buck stops here." It was Junior's job to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do see Ford dropping a Lincoln convertable (and perhaps the whole Mercury brand). But I do not see them builing a new plant for the C2. It more than likely will go to Wayne when the time comes- hopefully!

 

Igor:

 

Good post, but I do have to rebut your assertion with the first sentence. Bottom line, if Ford NA is one of the areas you oversee, there should have been more tabs on it. As the saying goes- fair or not- the "Buck stops here." It was Junior's job to know.

 

I understand - in the end the NA market is the core of the business - and if Bill fails here, the company will fail - but when assessing Bill's skills, the look at other divisions is important - his tenure is not a sucess far from it - but he does show skills - now lets use themwhere it matters...

 

About new plant for C2 ... .not gonna happen - Ford will revamp of the Mexican plants (The F-truck plant) to build the B-cars and Wayne will keep the Focus. For now that is.

 

Igor

Edited by igor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do see Ford dropping a Lincoln convertable (and perhaps the whole Mercury brand). But I do not see them builing a new plant for the C2. It more than likely will go to Wayne when the time comes- hopefully!

 

 

Why would they kill off Mercury? That would be the same as killing off Lincoln at the same time :rolleyes:

 

Mercury has been a bright spot for Ford lately. Its not like its costing Ford 100's of millions of dollars to come out with Mercury models that look different from their Ford counterparts. I think it would be counterproductive to kill off Mercury.

 

As for the new plant, they already stated that they are going to build a new plant in North America. Where and what is going to be built there is anyones guess, but I would put my money on lean-production plant where the C2 and deverites can be built and money made off it. It would be built in USA to throw a bone to the UAW next fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they kill off Mercury? That would be the same as killing off Lincoln at the same time :rolleyes:

 

Mercury has been a bright spot for Ford lately. Its not like its costing Ford 100's of millions of dollars to come out with Mercury models that look different from their Ford counterparts. I think it would be counterproductive to kill off Mercury.

 

As for the new plant, they already stated that they are going to build a new plant in North America. Where and what is going to be built there is anyones guess, but I would put my money on lean-production plant where the C2 and deverites can be built and money made off it. It would be built in USA to throw a bone to the UAW next fall.

Mercury is definately in a position to be a bright spot if ford invested in it. I wouldn't call a brand selling about 350k a 4-5 years ago to today where annual sales are around 100k a bright spot. All ford has to do is invest in the brand and not have it simply be a package of all ford products. Bring the euro fords to Mercury and set the pricing at a profitable margin and see how they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...