Chevy Volt - future GM failure

[TLyttle]

In fact, even I liked some models of the Corvair, the post-65 Corsas with the IRS and the turbos. (Yes, Gene, swing axle is IRS, but you know what I mean.) And I agree with you that the yowling about the Corvair was ridiculous considering other lumps of crap out there at the time (think AMC).

Everyone understood that the EV-1 was experimental, and that they were leased. The lessees were willing to buy them just the same. It was the destruction of them that was just silly: there were too many other uses for them, particularly in light of the plans to build the Volt.

The GM-built battery is another mistake: here's a company making pots and pans, now they are going to build nuclear reactors? Battery technology is moving way faster than GM could possibly stick with, considering their sloth-like movement in other areas. I play with toy airplanes, and have watched the lightning-paced development of, not only batteries, but motors, controllers, etc; one can hardly keep up.

Good thread, guys, we are all learning here!

[puetato89]

[talnlnky]

Originally Posted by tuckevalastin

I doubt that, the Prius wasn't much when it hit the dealerships and that didn't stop the buyers.


At the same time how can GM perfect the volt without actually releasing it?

prius didn't have many similar eco friendly competitors at the time... And no of its competition was at all "refined" and experienced already.

[PetersRedYaris]

I don't know what's better; to give the people what they want, or give them what they need. GM has always given America what they want; SUV's, big engines, and big power. Now look at them, their drowning. Now they're going to give us a $40K electric vehicle??? Yes we want it, but not at that price... Nissan's EV's will arrive at the same time, priced at 1/3 to 1/2, and will take all GM's success away. Toyota (on the other hand), gives us what they want us to have. It bothers me because I would love a quad cab turbo diesel Tacoma (Hilux) with a solid front axle, but I can't have one. That's just one example. How many of you want a diesel Yaris? The list goes on... Oh well, they seem to know what they're doing.

I guess I'm saying GM is offering to little, to late...

[talnlnky]

Originally Posted by tuckevalastin

On a final note trust is a personal thing and your trusts don't match everyone else's. And any smart man will tell you that the first gen of a technology has nothing to do with trust but instead the willingness to pay for a technology which will be better and cheaper in just a few short years. Go find a first gen cell phone and you will see what I mean.

hehe... that might be a bad analogy to use the cell phone.
I had a buddy in college, around spring of 02 find an old Cellular 1 phone... you know, the ones that were like a brick with an antenna. They showed more resemblence to an army radio and anything else.

He actually got it working for a brief time and swore up and down that it was better than his currently phone. He thought heavily about switching phones... You couldn't use those 1st gen phones anymore because of changes in technologies and signals.

Cells got smaller.... not better.

[talnlnky]

Originally Posted by PetersRedYaris

I don't know what's better; to give the people what they want, or give them what they need. GM has always given America what they want; SUV's, big engines, and big power. Now look at them, their drowning. Now they're going to give us a $40K electric vehicle??? Yes we want it, but not at that price... Nissan's EV's will arrive at the same time, priced at 1/3 to 1/2, and will take all GM's success away. Toyota (on the other hand), gives us what they want us to have. It bothers me because I would love a quad cab turbo diesel Tacoma (Hilux) with a solid front axle, but I can't have one. That's just one example. How many of you want a diesel Yaris? The list goes on... Oh well, they seem to know what they're doing.

I guess I'm saying GM is offering to little, to late...

GREAT POINT... its a shame that the big three won't consolidate their lines, offer less, thus have less overhead and be more efficient in their building process.

Its a shame they can't say shit to the public these days like, "it comes in any color you want, as long as it's black".

too bad they aren't willing to tell the public what the public wants instead of constantly trying to cater to the publics wants.

We want, what we can not logically have. If we CAN have it, we don't want it as much.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by TLyttle

Everyone understood that the EV-1 was experimental, and that they were leased. The lessees were willing to buy them just the same. It was the destruction of them that was just silly: there were too many other uses for them, particularly in light of the plans to build the Volt.

I'd have to see the movie that Brian recommends for more details.

I can relate to the idea that GM didn't want to be on the hook for logistics for the EV-1. There might have been some sort of compromise struck with the california legislature or some sort of shell game done with leasing, or even outsourcing the logistics. Just mashing them screams of expedient thinking.

What disappoints me a great deal were the other offerings in the EV-1 program, such as a CNG car, a hybrid, a fuel cell model and so on. There were many beginnings there, some of which deserved to be followed up on. While I am skeptical at this time in history of widespread use of electric cars I do think that they're a future mode of getting around. In the meantime a diversity of different fueled cars would take a lot of pressure off of our oil consumption.

Originally Posted by TLyttle

The GM-built battery is another mistake: here's a company making pots and pans, now they are going to build nuclear reactors? Battery technology is moving way faster than GM could possibly stick with, considering their sloth-like movement in other areas. I play with toy airplanes, and have watched the lightning-paced development of, not only batteries, but motors, controllers, etc; one can hardly keep up.

Good thread, guys, we are all learning here!

Yeah, I have a few little model airplanes. Wish I'd have had them when I was a kid! Especially those lithium batteries.

GM probably wanted to keep production "in house". Sometimes that's a good idea, other times it's better to admit your limitations and license someone else's hard work. GM could have easily purchased someone else's technology.

If only GM would get off of their high horse! They could be beating the pants off of other companies.

Meanwhile, Toyota continues to quietly grow. Who knows what they're brewing in their labs as we speak? Maybe a renaissance of the Electric RAV4, or an electric Yaris, or even a compact PHEV that gets eighty miles to the gallon and sells for under $20,000.

Gene

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by talnlnky

GREAT POINT... its a shame that the big three won't consolidate their lines, offer less, thus have less overhead and be more efficient in their building process.

Too many vested interests at GM for that approach. The executives do not like to lay off managers. The UAW does not like to lose members.

If they used a Lean Manufacture approach they could realize greater profits with more flexibility but thats a risky approach to take. Lean is an odd way to make things for folks who are used to assembly lines or doing things in big batches.

Gene

[Phaeton]

Gene, normally I don't agree with many of your posts, However I think your right about GM going to Lean Manufacturing. I hate to say it but the UAW is going to have to take a big look at themselves or they are going to bully themselves right out of a job.

[TLyttle]

Gene, can you give me a thumbnail sketch of "lean manufacture"? I'm not familiar with the process, not by that name at least...

[jambo101]

$40,000 for a Volt in the USA should be closer to $60,000 up here in Canada and at that price they may sell a few but if they are thinking they will get big sales numbers on this vehicle then the've totally misread the market again.

[landrym28]

Wow..it'll make the environment more greener, but will make your pockets less greener.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by TLyttle

Gene, can you give me a thumbnail sketch of "lean manufacture"? I'm not familiar with the process, not by that name at least...

I'm told that it has other titles so it may be familiar to you....

The basic idea of Lean is to reduce waste or "non-value added effort" in the entire workplace. Each individual is recruited as part of the effort and is responsible for keeping things orderly and efficient within their areas of operation.

The workplace is first organized according to something called "5S". I don't recall the Japanese terms but the English terms are...

1. Sort - Go through stuff and toss out or put into storage things that you do not need within a certain time frame (we usually worked around a month at one place, where I work now it's about two weeks). This includes tools and materials. You ever heard of "red tag"? People will red tag an item. It is put into a "red tag area" This is where stuff that is not needed gets dropped until someone can either justify it being there, can dispose of it or find a place for it (a home). This process is really dicey, in that if someone isn't communicating or aware stuff can get lost and when needed can create emergencies.

2. Set in Order - what you have in your work place is put into order so that you can find it and put it in your hand within thirty seconds. My toolbox at work is what I call an "organized mess". Each drawer is labeled so that others can get things if they need them, but the drawers are trashed to some degree. Every week I take some time to toss the junk. At the end of the day I will put things where they belong.

3. Shine - Keep the place clean. Every 5S place I ever worked in allowed for a small period of time to clean up. There is also "clean as you go" which is more efficient.

4. Standardize - everyone knows their part. There is to some degree consistent types of organization, such as shadowboards and other tricks.

5. Sustain - You have to keep on top of this stuff. Otherwise it's "spring cleaning" which is good but not good enough.

Lean takes this further along. The whole organization steamlines itself so that it takes in what it needs to work within a certain time frame, processes it efficiently and puts it out the door. The idea is to change your organization into a pipeline, where raw materials come in and stuff goes out. This is an ideal or goal, one that you never quite reach. Compromise is the stuff of reality. Batch sizes are reduced downwards, ideally to one item, and people work closely together through the production process so that mistakes are caught fast and corrected fast.

The "work cell" is a variation of assembly line that is organized into a "U" shape, so that people can watch one another and discover mistakes or bottlenecks rapidly.

Quality is "built" in from the get go by reducing "process variation" where it matters. Process is how stuff is made and variation is how stuff deviates from some idea or good standard. Sometimes it's really difficult to discover where to tighten things up and where to let them relax. I have some theory on methods that discover this but most of the time that's a job for engineers, though I've been known to pull them aside and point something out.

There is an idea of "pull". The originators of Lean got this idea from visiting a US supermarket. You know those racks that Soda sit in? As you take one out another one slides into place. A clerk will go around to see what is low and order more. Pull was how the organization made things. The customer (or business partner) generates orders, and each part of the organization makes what is needed when it's needed.

When I worked in consumer electronics we worked around orders from customers. These orders generated "Demand" which was satisfied during our shift. I was a "line tech", my job was to take stuff which was made slightly wrong, get it fixed fast and put it back onto the line. While I was fixing it the line coordinators were recording what went wrong and were finding out if it was caused by a bad part or someone having problems, or someone being a jerk or being stoned (our quality used to slide after lunch, and during lunch some people would smoke up). Over time the problems were straightened out.

In most industries it's more "push", what the shift can produce in a given period of time. You get more you have to take it rather than say "hey! No more for this shift". That is unless you had quotas, which are fine but if people aren't busy working on something that is a waste of sorts.

Bottlenecks restrict how fast something can be made.

In Lean people are "cross trained" so that they can jump in and help out to help get the pull properly done in the least amount of time. People go to where the bottlenecks are and reduce them or pull product through them. Kind of like a utility man except that many more people are utility people.

The more places you can fit in the more valuable you are to the company since you can eliminate more bottlenecks. In case anyone cares some Unions are starting to work with Lean Manufacturing and will change how they address work rules and other stuff. Too bad that the UAW, at least so far, has been somewhat resistant to this idea. Of course GM management is probably not cool with "worker empowerment" either and Lean is impossible if the workers cannot control things that are not normally controlled in US operations.

Toyota uses this method to make cars. Naturally it's not perfect. "Just in Time" is an ideal, and I think it's been abused by some folks.

There is a huge amount of communication needed to make this system work. It puts a lot of power into the hands of workers, who must police their own ranks and make sure t hat they're doing their jobs properly. Since quality is part of their job they're able to stop the process. Toyota has a signaling device that stops the line or Work Cell, and it is expected that you'll stop the line. Toyota also expects workers to submit 26 suggestions per year, or one every two weeks.

Managers have to coordinate stuff, insure that vendors get things there on time, and hash out stuff with customers. They get more of some headaches, fewer of others.

I've worked in two Lean operations - one was a consumer electronics manufacturer, the other was a research lab. The lab was different and I've never seen anything before or since like it, but I try to work at home this way.

I'm sure I've missed some points but I think I've put most of it down here. My experience was more of a worker than a planner or teacher.

Gene

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by Phaeton

Gene, normally I don't agree with many of your posts, However I think your right about GM going to Lean Manufacturing. I hate to say it but the UAW is going to have to take a big look at themselves or they are going to bully themselves right out of a job.

To be fair the Wharton/Harvard Business School types who run GM are going to have to let go of some of their power and some of their perks and privileges.

While I am adamantly against government regulation of bonuses I think that it's crazy to expect working people to take any manager seriously about "costs" when a CEO or one of the higher ups gets more in bonus money than some of these folks earn in a year, or in some cases a lifetime.

Aside the questions of fairness and equity, which I will argue because I think that high level decision makers work under huge amounts of pressure and stress, it's just not rational for an organization to give someone so much money, especially if the company isn't running well. IF anything, GM ought to fire their CEO and maybe the next layer down as a gesture of sincerity.

If we working people screw up and cost the company huge amounts of money we'd be fired. Why are CEOs different?


There is also the amount of worker power that Toyota gives their people.

Toyota allows their workers to stop the assembly line or work cell for ANY REASON that pertains to safety, quality or some aspect of the car that deviates from an ideal. I could not imagine GM management allowing their staff to stop the line if they thought something wasn't right with the cars. Maybe they do but I doubt it, not with the production pressures and costs per hour that GM works under.

I also don't think that GM management would allow their people to cross train, would take their quality suggestions seriously (I mean that the Suggestion Committee would really evaluate them) and would give them a sense of "team" that Toyota expects of their staff.

Most managers in manufacturing DO NOT TRUST THEIR PEOPLE. I've seen this over and over again in my half dozen or so years that I worked in manufacturing in the US.

The real damn shame is that most people who work in manufacturing are not there just for a paycheck. Most of us, and I am one of them, really like to build things. If we were given more power to shape what we make and could do a better job we'd gladly do it.

I am proud of what I make, but yes, I think we could do a better job. So do most of the guys with whom I work each day.

Gene

[TLyttle]

Hm. Looks like we are closer in our thinking than we thought. I agree with your last post in its entirety.

I ran my own company for some years, and didn't realise that we were running "lean", 'cuz everything in there that could be applied to our operation was "lean". We all made good money (profit sharing, among other perks), we all got along (same target: quality), we enjoyed ourselves. No one got bored, and the deadwood left on their own accord. It was a small company, but we changed the face of that industry to the benefit of the customer. I suppose someone will say that there is a big difference between us and GM, but I feel that Toyota proves that there is no difference: it can be done.

And man, can I relate to managers not trusting their people! Many companies I worked for simply felt that there had to be some trick to my suggestions about improving things; how goofy is that? No one goes to work to do a poor job, but Management seems to think that The Peasants must be there to do just that, as lousy a job as possible. None of those guys ever offered any kind of encouragement, and the thought of getting their own hands dirty... well, that was simply a non-starter.

I worked in a truck plant for some years, and was amazed at the transformation that took place when new, dedicated managers took over. All of a sudden the whip disappeared, and the enthusiasm appeared: no one could believe it was the same place. Management CAN make a difference, they just have to want to.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by TLyttle

Hm. Looks like we are closer in our thinking than we thought. I agree with your last post in its entirety.

I work for a living, it's not surprising. We probably just disagree on how things will change.

I think when you make the government powerful the bastards rise to the top and oppress people. I think that power corrupts and ought to be diluted as much as possible.

Other folks think that "Democracy" is the only safeguard against Robber Barons and other non-sense. They will fight very hard to defend the system since it has benefited them in some way.

This debate will probably never end.

Originally Posted by TLyttle

I ran my own company for some years, and didn't realise that we were running "lean", 'cuz everything in there that could be applied to our operation was "lean". We all made good money (profit sharing, among other perks), we all got along (same target: quality), we enjoyed ourselves. No one got bored, and the deadwood left on their own accord. It was a small company, but we changed the face of that industry to the benefit of the customer. I suppose someone will say that there is a big difference between us and GM, but I feel that Toyota proves that there is no difference: it can be done.

We have some profit sharing. If you had the opportunity to run your own firm than you're a lucky man. More so if you could "hack it". I'm starting to learn how to hack it, but Lord it's not easy, not at all.

Originally Posted by TLyttle

And man, can I relate to managers not trusting their people! Many companies I worked for simply felt that there had to be some trick to my suggestions about improving things; how goofy is that? No one goes to work to do a poor job, but Management seems to think that The Peasants must be there to do just that, as lousy a job as possible. None of those guys ever offered any kind of encouragement, and the thought of getting their own hands dirty... well, that was simply a non-starter.

I worked in a truck plant for some years, and was amazed at the transformation that took place when new, dedicated managers took over. All of a sudden the whip disappeared, and the enthusiasm appeared: no one could believe it was the same place. Management CAN make a difference, they just have to want to.

There is this delusion amongst SOME managers - they believe that there is this thing called a "Career Ladder". Those who climb the ladder into management are 'go getters' and those who "stay in the ranks" must be lazy.

Ain't the case. Some of us don't believe in bullshitting other people, or playing the Corporate Political Game. We hate the compromises and games and non-sense. Some of us are not people smart and have had to learn it as we get along, so we're not hip to those little things that make your career as a manager.

Some folks are not "people smart" and know their limitations. They elect to focus on their career and skills and can achieve wonderful things if you support them. They're not losers and are not stupid. They can also relate to their coworkers and lead others, an important thing when life gets tough on the floor.


I've worked in places where Management was AWFUL, like they were entitled children. Favoritism, sleeping with subordinates, fraternizing outside of work, indulging their bigotry and so on.

I've seen sincere and decent managers get skunked by disgruntled workers, they got sick and tired of fighting all of the time and nobody on the floor wanted to help them. Finally they "gave up" and let things go to hell.

Sometimes you get lucky or people get inspired. The opinion makers on the floor and the management see eye to eye, nobody plays too many games, and the dead wood either goes along or goes away. Be nice if a system were created that insured this sort of thing. Maybe Toyota has it and maybe they don't, but GM needs it badly.

GM could do great things. They have to change. Nothing else will save them now.

Gene

[TLyttle]

The other option for the managers who just give up is to quit and start their own company; that's what my partner and I did. We bought a failed company and applied what we learned. He ran the books, I ran the shop. One can't do that with a big company (NO ONE could afford GM, right?), but when the whole thing comes tumbling down (see this morning's news), there will be pieces small enough to be bought and rebuilt. Sounds like your opportunity may be at hand soon, Gene...