T-bird Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I like this guys thought process! http://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/passenger-vehicle/cars/we-should-act-and-disrupt-like-a-startup-says-ford-motorchief/47613741 Ford has sure changed in becoming an innovation leader over the last 10 years. Love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Same-old, same-old won't cut it anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 It's great that he gets it, but getting it and implementing it at a company like Ford are 2 different things. I've lived through this. You typically need to bring in outside folks that aren't entrenched in the old way of doing things and who understand the new technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 It would seem wiser for Ford to invest in startups than try to build them in-house due to cultural constraints mentioned. But, at the same time, this is a lot of hoo-hah. In the end, Ford's primary business is vehicles. Directing attention away from activity that is profitable and important and NOT trendy, in order to focus on unprofitable non-core "trendy" stuff is all kinds of bad. I get that Fields has to say stuff like this, but when push comes to shove, it is more important that they keep the core aspects of a business with narrow margins and gigantic barriers to entry healthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 You can do it internally but it has to be a separate group that doesn't operate under the old principles and baggage. And it has to be staffed with folks who think differently. Going forward they think that technology, software and connectivity will be the differentiators between Ford and other mfrs. And I think they're right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-bird Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 Being a leader in technology and innovation creates a difficult moat itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 well this may explain them thinking about bringing the midsize Van ? Wagon here, the Ford Tourette's..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) You can do it internally but it has to be a separate group that doesn't operate under the old principles and baggage. And it has to be staffed with folks who think differently. <sarcasm> </sarcasm> Edited June 10, 2015 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 If it were easy, everybody'd be doing it; as it is, most startups disappear like spit on a griddle. The marketing magic of being in the right place at the right time with the right product is elusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Ford (and other large companies) have a big advantage over startups when it comes to finances. They also have a lot more baggage to overcome. If they can overcome it they can do some amazing things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4d4evr-1 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 It would seem wiser for Ford to invest in startups than try to build them in-house due to cultural constraints mentioned. But, at the same time, this is a lot of hoo-hah. In the end, Ford's primary business is vehicles. Directing attention away from activity that is profitable and important and NOT trendy, in order to focus on unprofitable non-core "trendy" stuff is all kinds of bad. I get that Fields has to say stuff like this, but when push comes to shove, it is more important that they keep the core aspects of a business with narrow margins and gigantic barriers to entry healthy. Deming called it profound knowledge and then implementation takes the whole to be successful.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 You can do it internally but it has to be a separate group that doesn't operate under the old principles and baggage. And it has to be staffed with folks who think differently. Agreed, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focus05 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) Talk less. Act more. Innovation rarely works internally if the culture wasn't built that way to begin with, imo. Richard sort of had it right earlier: the business has to focus on its core. Its shareholders and corporate structures force that at this point. As "innovative" as they might try to be, they will always be struggling against upstarts. There are two ways to break from that past: Force faster iteration and/or upgradability. Historically, the automobile industry has moved in 3-4 year minor cycles and 6-8 major cycles. The talk is always about amortizing cost rather than innovating rapidly. I dare Ford to challenge product and manufacturing teams to increment faster at lower costs. Invest in startups outside of Ford and encourage your workers to go outside of the company and develop technologies. Create an incubator and lend your scale to the start-ups. In either case, the core capabilities where Ford needs to outstrip its competitors are: manufacturing, systems engineering (hardware, software) and regulatory control. If you have industry-leading flexibility in all these areas, you can iterate on your products vastly faster. To grow these, internal goals or external investments are the way to go. The other thing Ford cannot easily do internally is consider new business models. They will never make sense in the context of the company and its massive budget. Another good reason to fund start ups and companies outside of the mother ship. For example, Tesla is betting that by open sourcing its patents, more people will use its battery technology. If they do, they will use the Tesla charging stations and generate additional revenue. Eventually, Tesla becomes a nearly pure energy company rather than an automobile company. Brand new revenue model. Ford has no reason to open source its EV patents, which is why they didn't really do it. There's no bigger business opportunity for them. They just sort of opened them for a fee. Try again. There are ways for Ford to innovate, but it must think significantly differently. Edited June 14, 2015 by focus05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 My Ford Touch..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Talk less. Act more. Innovation rarely works internally if the culture wasn't built that way to begin with, imo. Richard sort of had it right earlier: the business has to focus on its core. Its shareholders and corporate structures force that at this point. As "innovative" as they might try to be, they will always be struggling against upstarts. There are two ways to break from that past: Force faster iteration and/or upgradability. Historically, the automobile industry has moved in 3-4 year minor cycles and 6-8 major cycles. The talk is always about amortizing cost rather than innovating rapidly. I dare Ford to challenge product and manufacturing teams to increment faster at lower costs. Invest in startups outside of Ford and encourage your workers to go outside of the company and develop technologies. Create an incubator and lend your scale to the start-ups. In either case, the core capabilities where Ford needs to outstrip its competitors are: manufacturing, systems engineering (hardware, software) and regulatory control. If you have industry-leading flexibility in all these areas, you can iterate on your products vastly faster. To grow these, internal goals or external investments are the way to go. The other thing Ford cannot easily do internally is consider new business models. They will never make sense in the context of the company and its massive budget. Another good reason to fund start ups and companies outside of the mother ship. For example, Tesla is betting that by open sourcing its patents, more people will use its battery technology. If they do, they will use the Tesla charging stations and generate additional revenue. Eventually, Tesla becomes a nearly pure energy company rather than an automobile company. Brand new revenue model. Ford has no reason to open source its EV patents, which is why they didn't really do it. There's no bigger business opportunity for them. They just sort of opened them for a fee. Try again. There are ways for Ford to innovate, but it must think significantly differently. I want to add that using modular architectures, that can be made up of a greater variation of components either low cost internally produced high-volume Modules or Externally purchased higher content low-volume modules. A GRWD architecture is the perfect place to start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 You typically need to bring in outside folks that aren't entrenched in the old way of doing things and who understand the new technology. You mean someone from a tech-heavy industry like, maybe, aviation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 You mean someone from a tech-heavy industry like, maybe, aviation? At least that worked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 You mean someone from a tech-heavy industry like, maybe, aviation? I was thinking of engineers and techies but yeah, that would also qualify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.