http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/25/how-bob-lutz-made-four-auto-journalists-his-secret-weapons-at/

neat read, and reasons to be concerned going forward........

Very interesting... and sobering.

That's who's back in charge, Camino.........

Marketing and finance people are the evil in the face of making truly great products. Even government is not as much of a blight.

from the article it seems like it helped

but

Does anyone else find this sort of pitiful?

...that apparently there was no way the constructive criticism could be found in-house

from the article it seems like it helped

but

Does anyone else find this sort of pitiful?

...that apparently there was no way the constructive criticism could be found in-house

It's not uncommon in large corporations. In my previous company (the one that made money in spite of themselves) they didn't like criticism from the inside, but if it was a highly paid outside consultant that came in and said the same thing? They were brilliant.

from the article it seems like it helped

but

Does anyone else find this sort of pitiful?

...that apparently there was no way the constructive criticism could be found in-house

Constructive criticism in-house probably means that you'll be facing some 'constructive criticism' come performance-review time.

There's nothing at all pitiful about this. In fact, it's quite the opposite. It shows that you're willing to take heat, as opposed to hearing the Yes Men all the time.

I fear Dan Ackerson.

I hope this story helps shame GM into keeping this program.

The best critic is one in house as they can correct the mistake before you waste the money putting out a bad product.

This is why even with the few warts Bob had he was one of the best things for GM. He made them look in the mirror and see their flaws. It may have made him not in favor with some but that ment he was doing his job.

I shudder to think what some of the recent meh cars from GM would have been like without these guys. Though it's always hard to tell with GM how much mediocre product was down to poor design or just a lack of funds.

hmmm ... since some wouldn't go for 'pitiful'

& based on their explanations :eek:

I'm upping the ante to PATHETIC

I hope this story helps shame GM into keeping this program.

The best critic is one in house as they can correct the mistake before you waste the money putting out a bad product...

yeah, getting mistakes turned around is good no matter how that's accomplished

even after time was already wasted making those mistake!

But it sounds to me that if in house opinions were valued, how much more progress could've been made in the Right Direction from the get-go?

but that's just me

Edited January 27, 201115 yr by 2b2

the sad thing is, anyone who drives more than a few cars as a hobby can quickly sample them all and tell GM what is effed on their cars. it doesn't take a consultant to tell them what is screwed.

the sad thing is, anyone who drives more than a few cars as a hobby can quickly sample them all and tell GM what is effed on their cars. it doesn't take a consultant to tell them what is screwed.

But these journalists, who are well-versed in the industry, have a wider knowledge and more experience than the typical "I buy/lease a new car every few years" person who only samples cars in the category they're looking at; I don't see someone cross-shopping a subcompact, a sportscar, and a minivan all at the same time multiple times a year. These journalists see new cars every day and are constantly exposed to nearly every car in the market, so they've got a more particular view on the situation than your average Joe.

I know NOS, you are 100% right. I guess my point is, not only is GM seemingly not wanting real feedback from those experts, they don't even seem to have a very good pulse on the very basic $h! that the customers could give them. It's doubly ridiculous!

So what I meant was, its a big organizational problem, and it comes from an org chart and decision maker tree that is piss poor at allowing the people within to design and build the best stuff possible. Some Finance or marketing or legal person is going to go out of their way to dilute greatness. And some of the easy improvements are right there under their turned up noses.

I am smelling a return to arrogance at GM and it doesn't sound pretty. My first order of business would be clean out a Telecom CEO. He has no business being there.

GM wanted an Alan Mullaly clone. Alan Mullaly understood science, technology, and manufacturing in the world arena for transportation vehicles.

All indications point to that Akenson Akerson whatever is not as savvy as he needs to be in those areas with regards to cars.

Mary Barra, new GM head of product development

I absolutely respect her credentials, however there are a couple of things in this interview that give me pause......more specifically the notion that everything is marketing driven.

SOmetimes you have to tell the market what it needs. Design / build it from the gut and if its good they will come. That was part of Bob Lutz' approach. I am sensing this new GM is data reactive now.

Edited January 28, 201115 yr by regfootball

Someone tell Lt. Dan to calm down. He'll get his legs back eventually.

I see Mark is speaking on the Knothole in public now. I suspect it is his way to show he wants to keep it in place.

http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2011/01/gm%E2%80%99s-reuss-puts-new-products-through-the-%E2%80%9Cknothole%E2%80%9D/

I like his thinking. Lutz said he told the people at GM to replace him with someone like him only younger. I think they found their guy if they let him do thinks like he would like too. Lets hope they keep him free to work his ideas.

Edited February 3, 201115 yr by hyperv6

what is the government exit strategy from gm ?

I fear Dan Ackerson.

+1