Jump to content

Hackett in for Long Haul


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

I mean, I totally get that - if I'm understanding it correctly, it sounds like they're basically making each product a group's "baby" in that they're responsible for it, rather than just finishing a task, and moving onto the next without a care for the previous one.

 

That's my take.  In the past managers would get rewarded on the product launch but never had to answer to what happened afterwards whether it was warranty claims or sales drop due to no refreshes or any other long term problems.  It changes the way you think and the way you approach the vehicle from day one.  Also it promotes more of a group goal rather than each sub team having their own individual goals and objectives.

 

A good analogy was my early programming career.  When I wrote a piece of code I knew that if it stopped working I was going to get called in the middle of the night to fix it.  As opposed to some groups who wrote the code and "threw it over the wall".  You better believe I did a lot more testing and I made sure the error messages had the right information.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

I mean, I totally get that - if I'm understanding it correctly, it sounds like they're basically making each product a group's "baby" in that they're responsible for it, rather than just finishing a task, and moving onto the next without a care for the previous one.

 

That's exactly it.  For more on EPLM's, listen to last weeks  "Autoline After Hours" (#487) where they interview Dave Pericak about the Mach E.  An hour long broadcast, but worth the listen.

 

http://www.autoline.tv/journal/?cat=1513

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

That's my take.  In the past managers would get rewarded on the product launch but never had to answer to what happened afterwards whether it was warranty claims or sales drop due to no refreshes or any other long term problems.  It changes the way you think and the way you approach the vehicle from day one.  Also it promotes more of a group goal rather than each sub team having their own individual goals and objectives.

 

A good analogy was my early programming career.  When I wrote a piece of code I knew that if it stopped working I was going to get called in the middle of the night to fix it.  As opposed to some groups who wrote the code and "threw it over the wall".  You better believe I did a lot more testing and I made sure the error messages had the right information.

 

Working in operations, I hated those late night wake up calls.The best of them were when I found it was a network issue so I could pass the joy to network engineers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, mackinaw said:

 

That's exactly it.  For more on EPLM's, listen to last weeks  "Autoline After Hours" (#487) where they interview Dave Pericak about the Mach E.  An hour long broadcast, but worth the listen.

 

http://www.autoline.tv/journal/?cat=1513

 

 

 

I like Dave Pericak. I like what he did with the S550 program, I like what he did while he was in charge of Ford Performance. Not entirely sure what his job title is these days but it's nice to see his name pop up again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

 

Working in operations, I hated those late night wake up calls.The best of them were when I found it was a network issue so I could pass the joy to network engineers.

 

Well back then we owned the network too (X.25 private lines).   I just remember as I wrote every error message thinking "will I know what this means when I'm half asleep at 3 am?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I like Dave Pericak. I like what he did with the S550 program, I like what he did while he was in charge of Ford Performance. Not entirely sure what his job title is these days but it's nice to see his name pop up again. 

 

Dave is now in charge of the "Icon" EPLM, which includes Mustang, Bronco and Raptor.  He probably has the best job at the company.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2019 at 12:01 PM, jpd80 said:

Exactly

This is not an all new design but a clever evolution of Escape/Kuga to move it in the right direction. The work on C2 was done by Ford Europe and aimed at maximising construction efficiency as well as bringing the prodigal CD4 back into alignment as a C2 Plus.

 

There is a problem with Ford’s American manufacturing particularly with flexibility, their engineers and managers are blown away by plants that can build up to seven different vehicles, I think Ford US has lost the depth of knowledge, lots of short term hires that don’t see the bigger picture than their immediate task.

 

I'm not anti-union generally... I think they do a good job for the most part and collective bargaining does level the playing field between employee and employer. However, this is one of those issues that is very clearly a result of collective bargaining. Ford can't implement flexible manufacturing in the US like they do in almost every other plants outside the US because UAW contract now days generally have job-product protection clause - meaning Ford can't move or combine production of different vehicles without getting union approval. This is why Honda can build 4 models in the same plant in the US but Ford can only build one model (and its Lincoln twin) in each plant. 

 

Valencia, Saarlouis, 3 out of 5 Chang'an Ford plants, Auto-alliance Thailand (the non-Ranger plant) and Taiwan are fully flex plants capable of building different size and platform vehicles. None of the North America plants are setup to do that. Flat Rock is probably the closest Ford has to a flex plant in the US and it is also the only plant that can't handle SUVs (so not truly flex) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bzcat said:

 

I'm not anti-union generally... I think they do a good job for the most part and collective bargaining does level the playing field between employee and employer. However, this is one of those issues that is very clearly a result of collective bargaining. Ford can't implement flexible manufacturing in the US like they do in almost every other plants outside the US because UAW contract now days generally have job-product protection clause - meaning Ford can't move or combine production of different vehicles without getting union approval. This is why Honda can build 4 models in the same plant in the US but Ford can only build one model (and its Lincoln twin) in each plant. 

 

Valencia, Saarlouis, 3 out of 5 Chang'an Ford plants, Auto-alliance Thailand (the non-Ranger plant) and Taiwan are fully flex plants capable of building different size and platform vehicles. None of the North America plants are setup to do that. Flat Rock is probably the closest Ford has to a flex plant in the US and it is also the only plant that can't handle SUVs (so not truly flex) 

Amazing what Ford ROW is capable of doing when the situation requires.. 

It even goes to variations within the main models at those plants, even building Euro LHD and RHD specced vehicles down the same line is a real challenge, FRAP and OAC being the only two plants engaged in RHD/LHD Euro based export vehicles.

 

The real eye opener to GM execs was Holden's now defunct Australian plant at Elizabeth, Australia.

Down the same line they would make domestic RHD Commodore sedan, Pick up and stationwagon,

Export LHD G8 and middle east cars in LHD but then after GFC those were replaced by LHD SS and Caprice.

 

The set up to do all of that with just in time parts was simply amazing to watch.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, bzcat said:

I'm not anti-union generally... I think they do a good job for the most part and collective bargaining does level the playing field between employee and employer. However, this is one of those issues that is very clearly a result of collective bargaining. Ford can't implement flexible manufacturing in the US like they do in almost every other plants outside the US because UAW contract now days generally have job-product protection clause - meaning Ford can't move or combine production of different vehicles without getting union approval. This is why Honda can build 4 models in the same plant in the US but Ford can only build one model (and its Lincoln twin) in each plant. 

 

I disagree. At MAP before we went down for the Ranger retool, we had FWD ICE, FHEV, PHEV and BEV cars all on 1 line. FRAP has RWD, FWD and AWD on one line. Hell, OAC (a union plant) had 2 entirely different platforms in there until the Flex was discontinued. As discussed in another thread, Wixom had unibody FWD, RWD and BOF RWD on one line at the same time. The main reason it closed was because it was so massive and old the cost to modernize it was astronomical and with Ford on the brink of bankruptcy so retooling was never an option. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2019 at 12:33 PM, akirby said:

Had not heard about EPLM but that's exciting and exactly the type of change Ford needs.  Holding all the team members responsible for the lifecycle of the product including warranty costs along with mandating higher profit margins should drive better business decisions and result in better products.

 

Implementation is key. If you go to an extreme w/EPLM, you get problems similar to what happened when Ford split apart SUVs & trucks in the early 00s, and the Expy & Explorer ended up with significantly less parts sharing w/the F-Series, with minimal benefit to the consumer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2019 at 9:05 AM, Trailhiker said:

Motorweek just had a great review for the Escape.

I haven't seen it, but it's the only one.  Motor Trend, Car&Driver and Consumer Reports all had issues with the nasty 3-cylinder and the pricing.  It's possible that Motorweek only tested the 4-cylinder, as did the vast majority of testers at launch.  Now that the 3 is more readily available, the you-know-what is hitting the can.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2019 at 7:45 PM, fuzzymoomoo said:

 

I disagree. At MAP before we went down for the Ranger retool, we had FWD ICE, FHEV, PHEV and BEV cars all on 1 line. FRAP has RWD, FWD and AWD on one line. Hell, OAC (a union plant) had 2 entirely different platforms in there until the Flex was discontinued. As discussed in another thread, Wixom had unibody FWD, RWD and BOF RWD on one line at the same time. The main reason it closed was because it was so massive and old the cost to modernize it was astronomical and with Ford on the brink of bankruptcy so retooling was never an option. 

 

I think what bzcat was referring to wasn't so much the plant's ability to flex as the contract's ability to flex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RichardJensen said:

 

Implementation is key. If you go to an extreme w/EPLM, you get problems similar to what happened when Ford split apart SUVs & trucks in the early 00s, and the Expy & Explorer ended up with significantly less parts sharing w/the F-Series, with minimal benefit to the consumer.

 

Some of the logic I've read about reduced part sharing is different styling for different consumer targets... But  as an owner of a 1996 Bronco, damn is it wonderful and convenient being able to source anything from a seat, to a fender, bumper, steering wheel, etc from an F-series truck.  Absolutely fantastic and makes maintenance so much cheaper and easier. 

 

I miss those days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CLTEcoBoost said:

It's possible that Motorweek only tested the 4-cylinder

 

Motorweek's road test was of Escape Hybrid. Their test vehicle was 2020 Ford Escape Titanium Hybrid AWD. The hybrid powertrain is a slightly updated version of the tried and true power split architecture from Aisin that Ford used in Fusion, C-Max, and the previous generation Escape Hybrid. 

 

 

Edited by rperez817
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RichardJensen said:

 

Implementation is key. If you go to an extreme w/EPLM, you get problems similar to what happened when Ford split apart SUVs & trucks in the early 00s, and the Expy & Explorer ended up with significantly less parts sharing w/the F-Series, with minimal benefit to the consumer.

 

 The product team breakout is interesting (where does C2 Focus fit?):

  • F-Series
  • Urban utilities
  • Rugged utilities
  • Family utilities
  • Performance vehicles
  • Commercial vehicles
  • Electric vehicles
  • Compact trucks
  • Luxury vehicles
  • Emerging market vehicles
Edited by Harley Lover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RichardJensen said:

 

Implementation is key. If you go to an extreme w/EPLM, you get problems similar to what happened when Ford split apart SUVs & trucks in the early 00s, and the Expy & Explorer ended up with significantly less parts sharing w/the F-Series, with minimal benefit to the consumer.


Common architecture will dictate a lot of sharing under the skin.  But my impressions was these teams weren’t necessarily doing the engineering , they were just managing the decisions.  I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After looking at the product categories announced by Ford for EPLM, I realized that Mustang does not fit in any of those categories. Not good.

 

I looked around for a bit, and I think I found the answer. Here's Dave Pericak's latest title within Ford: Director Enterprise Product Line Management - Ford Icons

 

I wonder if that gives him any influence on Bronco?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harley Lover said:

 

 The product team breakout is interesting (where does C2 Focus fit?):

  • F-Series
  • Urban utilities
  • Rugged utilities
  • Family utilities
  • Performance vehicles
  • Commercial vehicles
  • Electric vehicles
  • Compact trucks
  • Luxury vehicles
  • Emerging market vehicles

 

It's possible they are going to EOL Focus and Fiesta, I know they are loss leaders in most markets.  It's also possible VW will take over development for those small cars, they have great potential synergy there anyway.  I don't see anything in the pipeline for those segments right now, but they could go 8 years before anything happens.  It's just a guess, I assume Ford is just sitting on them until they figure it out. 

Edited by Assimilator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Harley Lover said:

After looking at the product categories announced by Ford for EPLM, I realized that Mustang does not fit in any of those categories. Not good.

 

I looked around for a bit, and I think I found the answer. Here's Dave Pericak's latest title within Ford: Director Enterprise Product Line Management - Ford Icons

 

I wonder if that gives him any influence on Bronco?

 

The Bronco, Mustang and Raptor fall under Ford Icons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Harley Lover said:

After looking at the product categories announced by Ford for EPLM, I realized that Mustang does not fit in any of those categories. Not good.

 

I looked around for a bit, and I think I found the answer. Here's Dave Pericak's latest title within Ford: Director Enterprise Product Line Management - Ford Icons

 

I wonder if that gives him any influence on Bronco?

 

Listen to Autoline After Hours episode #487 mentioned above.  Pericak is the head of the "Icon" EPLM, which includes Mustang. Bronco and Raptor.

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...