Can Ford turn itself into a Tech Company?

[mackinaw]

Interesting article in the magazine section of the New York Times. The title may not be the best, but the article does chronicle where Ford is heading regarding autonomous driving and the problems they, and the industry, face.

 

 

It’s a long read, but I found it interesting. Being BON, I suspect most folks will dismiss this, but no doubt the world is changing, whether we like it or not.

 

The link should take you to the NYT website. If you go to an "Vigilink"ad site, press the "continue on the the NYT" button.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/09/magazine/tech-design-autonomous-future-cars-detroit-ford.html

Edited November 11, 2017 by mackinaw

[akirby]

The technology will proliferate across mfrs and models as safety/convenience features, but I don’t see true autonomous vehicles being used widely outside of private fleets, campuses, parks, etc.

[murphy62]

Ford was a technology company in the late 1960s. They bought Philco to form Philco-Ford. I worked for Philco at the time. I helped install a Philco computer mainframe system in MI back then. After about 6 years they changed their minds and laid everyone off and shut down Philco-Ford. The building that I worked in in Willow Grove, PA is now a Walmart.

[Pioneer]

I sure hope we don't become a technical company. Ford can't even get Sync 3 to function correcty.

[rperez817]

Great article. Thank you mackinaw for sharing this sir. Sounds like Hackett has some good ideas to ensure Ford's future survival as self driving cars start being sold.

Edited November 11, 2017 by rperez817

[mackinaw]

Most of us, myself included, don’t fully realize the changes that are coming to Ford and to the industry itself. While we lament the long time it’s taking Ford to bring the Ranger and Bronco to market, in a scant five years (not a long time) you will be driving a level-four autonomous Model E (or some other model from some other company).

I have family, and friends, who work at Ford in Engine Design (truck). Most have worked more than 30 years and are now retiring. The most cynical of the bunch sees absolutely no future in the ICE.

Another contact, a friend who works in Ford’s electric/hybrids section, has worked more than 30 years. She was looking at retirement but will probably put it off a few more years. Talking to her at a wedding last month, she was absolutely beaming about the vehicles Ford has coming out.

So yeah, like it or not, new technology is coming.

[jpd80]

This reminds me of when Jac Nasser was buying up auto companies and treating them like dot com start up investments,

it's 18 years on but to me, the similarities with Ford wanting to be seen in certain ways by the market is uncannily similar

not to mention that Ford has a bag of cash burning a hole in its pocket....

 

I just hope they don't forget how to build money making vehicles...

[ANTAUS]

And here I am, in a Tesla owners FB page, and it's the reverse. You have a company that has a lot of tech in their car, but the simplest of thing like trim molding, interior panel alignment, door alignment, fogged up headlight/rear lenses, distorted windows seems to be the biggest issues they have.

[mackinaw]

And here I am, in a Tesla owners FB page, and it's the reverse. You have a company that has a lot of tech in their car, but the simplest of thing like trim molding, interior panel alignment, door alignment, fogged up headlight/rear lenses, distorted windows seems to be the biggest issues they have.

 

Ford's biggest advantage, in this new-world order, is that they know how to make stuff. Tesla's quality problems and production problems are legendary. What good is having a groundbreaking car if you don't know how to build it?

[theoldwizard]

I have a lot of insight into this having worked on fuel injection system (called EEC back then) for most of my 31 year career (retired in '07). I still know some people working there (less and less as they retire). I worked for a number of years in Electronics Division, which was spun off to form Visteon (luckily I transferred back into the Motor Company before going down that drain !). I still remember the short lived Ford Microelectronics (Colorado Spring, CO).

 

Using Apple as a top "technology" example, one thing that set them apart is they design parts of their CPU chips that are relevant to their product (graphics). They are also INTIMATELY involved with the design and manufacturing of their product. Ford engineering is (currently) purposely "arms length" away from all of that letting PURCHASING make most of these decision ! When engineering does not have input into the FUTURE of these core technologies, they are left to "band aid" what get handed to them !

 

Last, but probably most important, Ford's IT organization is organized to NOT assist engineering in new processes and procedure that would assist them in their development of new products, especially software ! IT does a good job of providing basic computers, office automation and CAD, but that is it. Software, and how it is made, is still a complete mystery to all middle and upper engineering management.

 

These statements are all current or occurred during the past 5-10 years.

Edited November 17, 2017 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

This reminds me of when Jac Nasser was buying up auto companies and treating them like dot com start up investments,

it's 18 years on ...

I lived through that. (It cost Ford $1B to buy Kwik-Fit and another $1B to sell it a couple of years later.) 2 "take aways" for me.

 

If you were in the same position for 2+ years, you were "stagnant". 5+ years, and maybe you should be pushed out of the company ! Many of the people I worked with then had 10+ years and they actually LIKED what they were doing and wanted to keep doing the same or similar work.

 

One positive was, he made me think more about "the company" and not just my job. Somewhat frustrating, because I could see ways of improving things, but there was no way of implementing them

[silvrsvt]

Last, but probably most important, Ford's IT organization is organized to NOT assist engineering in new processes and procedure that would assist them in their development of new products, especially software ! IT does a good job of providing basic computers, office automation and CAD, but that is it. Software, and how it is made, is still a complete mystery to all middle and upper engineering

Most IT depts are just that...support IT needs, not actual IT work. Programming places have IT support and are two different animals without much crossover. Ford would have create its own software group to do what you say.

[akirby]

You're better off not having the normal IT group doing that type of software. The engineering department needs their own software team staffed by people who understand both software and engineering. And the parts and assembly teams need to be involved in the engineering way up front. Doing a waterfall/throw it over the wall to the next group just doesn't work.

 

I thought Mulally would have made those changes during his tenure.

[mackinaw]

Software, and how it is made, is still a complete mystery to all middle and upper engineering management.

 

This is hardly surprising. Software is a mystery to 99% of the people living on the planet.

[jasonj80]

 

This is hardly surprising. Software is a mystery to 99% of the people living on the planet.

Computers in general are, just because you know say security and networking people assume you also know programming and data storage is all one big world to people. You work in "computers" and that means you know it all.

[rperez817]

Last, but probably most important, Ford's IT organization is organized to NOT assist engineering in new processes and procedure that would assist them in their development of new products, especially software ! IT does a good job of providing basic computers, office automation and CAD, but that is it. Software, and how it is made, is still a complete mystery to all middle and upper engineering management.

 

General Motors' IT organization used to have that problem. They corrected it completely now. Almost everything they outsourced to EDS (now DXC) in the past is currently done in-house at GM. They opened several IT innovation centers that are staffed with experts in software, product development, engineering, etc. This is a big competitive advantage for GM.

 

One of my old colleagues now works at the GM IT innovation center in Roswell, Georgia near Atlanta. He directly supports several GM engineers and managers across the globe.

Edited November 15, 2017 by rperez817

[akirby]

Computers in general are, just because you know say security and networking people assume you also know programming and data storage is all one big world to people. You work in "computers" and that means you know it all.

 

I tell people I'm an IT Architect because I haven't coded anything meaningful since the late 90s nor do I intend to start. I have a developer doing some web development for me and I don't have a clue how that stuff works. They also assume if you do any IT stuff you know Windows and PCs. I did Unix stuff and only know what I have to know to get by with Windoze stuff.

[theoldwizard]

 

Last, but probably most important, Ford's IT organization is organized to NOT assist engineering in new processes and procedure that would assist them in their development of new products, especially software ! IT does a good job of providing basic computers, office automation and CAD, but that is it. Software, and how it is made, is still a complete mystery to all middle and upper engineering management.

Most IT depts are just that...support IT needs, not actual IT work. Programming places have IT support and are two different animals without much crossover. Ford would have create its own software group to do what you say.

 

 

You're better off not having the normal IT group doing that type of software. The engineering department needs their own software team staffed by people who understand both software and engineering.

 

I thought Mulally would have made those changes during his tenure.

You guys make EXCELLENT points.

 

This model for IT came out of Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The top management was "freaked out" when they realized that they were PERSONALLY liable for the accuracy of the financial information that was reported to the government as well as the public. Because all financial data is stored on computers, IT was charged with coming up with a series of "checks and balances" to insure the accuracy of the data (i.e. unauthorized person could not change the data and in many case, who changed it and when is logged). When their plan was presented to upper management, they requested that the same rules and procedures be applied to the entire company, not just the finance community.

 

The results are what is in place today. I know of several cases were portions of Engineering had their own "programming" staff (to develop applications specific to their components). These groups were "taken over" by IT, and then the "cost" was charged back to that organization. This results in high costs to engineering and less than responsive support from their programming support group who have (IMHO) many checks and balances that are not necessary.

 

I know of one specific case where IT has spent over 10 years trying to come up with a plan on how to take over one of these "stealth" IT groups. Even in cases where they clearly should be able to provide a service (compute servers) they have failed miserably, to the point where the engineering group has had to purchase, install and support their own servers.

 

 

I will admit, that the basic service that IT does provide (desk top and laptop computers, office automation and basic CAD) are done fairly well for a big company. Except for one thing. All "first level" Help Desk attendants sit overseas. None of them speak English as their primary language. If there is a hardware problem or a software problem that can not be resolved from a remote location, it will take 48 hours before a person will come to your desk. Except if you are upper management ! They have their own support staff, on call, worldwide 24/7. More than one of the support members have been called to some executive home at night to help "Johnny" do his IT homework !!! (You just can't make this shit up !)

[theoldwizard]

 

This is hardly surprising. Software is a mystery to 99% of the people living on the planet.

But those people are not assigned jobs MANAGING software development for key product components in a Fortune 50 company.

[theoldwizard]

They also assume if you do any IT stuff you know Windows and PCs. I did Unix stuff and only know what I have to know to get by with Windoze stuff.

While I was working, my tiny group and I were responsible for a couple of dozen servers and dedicated workstations located in 3 different suburbs of Detroit. None of them ran Windows.

 

The thousands of end users we supported needed to "log in" to these server from their desktop/laptop PC, clearly a task that IT should support. They were unwilling to even allow the version of software we recommended be installed on the PC ("It is not the current version !" SO WHAT ! It was bought and paid for and it works !!)

 

Countless thousands of hours were spent by myself and my staff explaining end users how to configure the software so that they could do their job ! This particular situation IS better today.

[akirby]

IT can still manage the servers but allow each business unit to do their own software development. SOX does play a big role and audit compliance is a huge requirement. Separation of duties and least privileged access always applies. If the IT support staff wants to be a PITA and try to control the application developers or off the shelf software too much that can be disastrous.

 

And of course cloud devops throws a huge curve at that model, especially with security and compliance.

[jpd80]

The reason Ford wants so much tech and connectivity in tis vehicles is to encourage buyers to pay more.

We;re getting further and further away from people who love driving cars to those who just see them

as something to sit in while they continue to text or do work on their iPads.

 

I think it's dangerous to buy into this too heavily, it's the plan of the disruptors who don't follow traditional

business plans but instead rely on a slam dunk product eliminating most of the competition. That rarely

if ever happens in the automotive world, as does removing the emotional connection between buyer

and their chosen vehicle.

Edited November 17, 2017 by jpd80

[SoonerLS]

This is hardly surprising. Software is a mystery to 99% of the people living on the planet.

I know this about software--it's the part of the computer that you can't break with a hammer...and it's usually the part you *really* want to break with a very large hammer...

[akirby]

One of my favorite phrases.

 

 

Works as coded.

[jpd80]

One of my favorite phrases.

 

 

Works as coded.

Next time you see Theoldwizzard post, as him about how Ford Aus came to him at the eleventh hour

begging for a 4-speed auto program because they nearly forgot about it and there's no money left in

the budget so could he please work on it in his own time.......and make sure it wors perfectly because

there's no backsies...

 

Moral of the story, .a friend in need is a pain in the ass but the good in people always shines through...

Edited November 18, 2017 by jpd80