Content provided in partnership with

Automotive Industry

Letters

Automotive Industries, Jan, 2003

The Buzz Creates Buzz

An engineer friend of mine just read me your fantastic article in Automotive Industries about "the Buzz." (Al November 2002, pg. 64) I would dearly love a copy, or perhaps the URL to a website where I could send folks to read it -- or perhaps a best-selling paperback based on it!

Thanks for putting those thoughts into such eloquent written form.

Tracy Logan

Rochester, NY

As defined in your article, I have been branded as a "grouser" during various stages of my career.

In one case, as a result of protecting the company from being put at a competitive disadvantage by an undocumented print change that an OEM was trying to force upon us, I was put on probation by a "protected" sales manager.

Most Popular Articles in Autos: Service Slants; 2007 utility vehicle buyer's guide: Side-By-Sides are popular; here's who ...; Transmission considerations: beyond the manual gearbox; Buell Motorcycle engineering, innovation, & dedication: in an industry ...; 100 + 10: America's oldest automotive magazine celebrates its 110th year ...; More »

In another case, I ticked off another protected manager who was technically incompetent but involved with higher management. This indiscretion resulted in me being "laid off due to the need to rationalize the staffing requirements in response to a business downturn."

The ONLY way to address the "buzz" issue that you so aptly describe is to issue diplomatic immunity and/or get-out-of-jail-free-cards to designated creative staff members in the engineering and/or development ranks. This can't/won't happen.

In my case, things have improved over the years and I am now employed at a company where my knowledge and experience are valued.

Name withheld on request

Reading the "Buzz" was like having a fortuneteller tell you things about your life they couldn't possibly know. I don't know if you actually lived through all the things you describe in the Buzz or not, but if so, we are living parallel lives. I must admit however, that it helped that you captured the problem in print. The first thing I did was take it to the copy machine and leave copies where all the people who cause the Buzz would find it. My theory is that like vampires, they can't stand to be exposed to the light of day.

Ellen Donnelly

via Internet

You're onto something Ellen. We maintain they don't have reflections either. -- Ed

Can't Afford to Change

Your Nov. 2002 Al Editorial hit the "nail on the head" in regards to cost driven engineering changes (Al November, pg. 6).

What is distressing is the fact we do not seem to learn from our mistakes and continue the practice. In some case, we (suppliers, OEMs) are cost-cutting ourselves out of business. Poor quality and customer dissatisfaction are the only possible results.

While the North American OEMs have closed the quality/reliability gap with the European and Japanese OEMs, they are still kicking our collective behinds.

This should be a red flag to OEM management, because the Euro/Japanese OEMs are manufacturing higher quality vehicles in the USA.

Stephen G. Johnson

Product Engineer

I agree with you regarding change at the wrong time. At launch (actually after Pilot or Manufacturing Validation Build) is not the time to change, even for cost or productivity improvement. While well intended, it can tip over the launch or cause a problem at a supplier or assembly plant. I always knew that the systems at suppliers were more fragile than ours and it got more fragile the further away from Tier 1 you got. You did a good job of explaining that. This is where experience in launches counts. The "old salts" have a big role to play here. They've been down that road before and have learned the lessons.

via Internet

The scenario you describe in your editorial is avoidable. The technique is called Systems Engineering, and is very well established in the Defense and Aerospace domains.

A key construct of Systems Engineering is function-based technical specifications, summarized by the three F's -- fit, form and function. I have yet to see a specification created by one of the major automakers that properly identified the external interfaces of the component, the function desired at that interface and the performance levels of that function. Our industry is one steeped in parts and details, and the current crop of specifications exemplifies such.

Unfortunately, OEMs lack much Systems Engineering talent, since the emphasis is placed on functional groups and the more traditional engineering disciplines.

What I know of Toyota points to them having many more "Generalists" on programs, and use function-based specifications to describe the component in "black box" terms giving suppliers the maximum opportunity to optimize the component design, while Toyota manages the vehicle design.

Kevin Dutcher

President, Detroit Chapter of INCOSE (International Council on Systems Engineering)

Name withheld by request engineer at a Major Tier 1 Automotive Supplier

Your editorial on "Managing Change" is right on target. I am involved in a one of the "Band-Aid" actions caused by a cost save. The real cost to such blunders is the redirection of resources off designs to be launched over the next two years. Future designs suffer and the cycle perpetuates. If North American OEM's want to save money, they should suck up today's costs and properly develop designs upfront.

Automotive Industry

Letters

Automotive Industries, Jan, 2003

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Business

Most Popular Articles in Autos

Most Popular Publications in Autos