Sandy Munro: Ford enginners wanted 48V, as early as 1980s, but finance execs said NO.

[firsttruck]

We all know the advantages of innovation and have been the beneficiary of it but someone has to play the devil's advocate. "Fail fast, fail often" sounds cool if you are a tanager experimenting with scraps you got for free in your basement. Not quite the same when you are planning to disrupt the entire supply chain.

There is value in doing the same old thing. Something that has been around for 30 years has allowed hundreds of companies to come to existence to support it and to compete around that technology. That provides stable jobs, cheap parts and accessories. If every 5 years you moved from 6V to 12V to 24V to 48V to 96V, it would cost more to build the cars for companies that buy parts from a monopoly and would cost more to replace the parts on those cars. In other words, we have to judge innovation in context; which is the ratio of Positive impact of it to the negative impact.
.....

The engineers were not advocating major changes willy-nilly.
For a major change there had to be significant reasons and significant improvements.
Not something that regular going to occur every 5 years.

By late 1980s, 12V had been standard from late 1940s/early 1950s, over 30 years.

Not every increment from 12V to 24V to 48V to 96V would have made sense.
24V probably not enough advantage for disruption caused.
96V is generally considered too high to be safe as a low voltage.

.....
We can sit on the sidelines and question the rate of the innovation for GM and Ford but if they constantly made bad financial decisions, they would not be around as long as they have.
..

They survived bad decisions for a long time by acting as loose cartels that suppress/kill innovations and disruptors that might impact their domains (profits).


EV1 killed.
Use of NiMH large format battery patents for EVs suppressed. ( GM, then sold to fossil fuel industry).
Lobbying to kill or water-down air pollution reduction regulation.
Lobbying to kill or water-down fuel economy efficiency regulation.

Now promotion of climate change denial or confusion.

---------------------------------------

Polluted Air Shortens Human Lifespans More Than Tobacco, Study Finds India, other South Asian countries suffer biggest losses as China reverses damage; improvements often ‘driven by people’s demands’
Aug. 29, 2023
https://www.wsj.com/health/polluted...espans-more-than-tobacco-study-finds-bbcf8f48

---------------------------------------

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

Interesting how you write describe the "bigger picture" as something that engineering isn't aware of and then describe them as being from the "bowels".

So much for team work, shared experience/understanding, and utilizing all the strengths available.

I intended to imply nothing about ideals of "team work" etc.

YOU (and Sandy) painted a picture of a corporate culture wherein the engineers felt their views were disassociated from ultimate corporate (or finance) decisions - seeming (to me) to suggest a standard large corporation structure and hierarchy, reflected in my comments.

Given and assuming that structure/hierarchy, I was describing my sympathy for both sides of a possible explanation. Maybe, as you and Sandy suggest, good ideas were being blown off merely because no one *outside* of engineering had the guts (how's *that* for "team work" ideals?), or instead maybe engineering wasn't privy to all the factors.

I dont know which was which.

though to be honest, here's a dirty little not-so-secret: like lawyers* and doctors**, engineers*** are notorious for THINKING they understand everything, even absent training or experience in the relevant domain

so some of them may believe they should be asked into the board room, office of the CFO, or office of the CLO, to weigh in on matters and decisions outside their area of training or experience, but it doesn't mean that *not* inviting them is an indication of a lack of team work.

or should they be inviting the CLO to their engineering decision meetings?



*I'm a lawyer by training
** my wife's a doctor in practice
*** my social group is 1/2 the UT ECE faculty, and my company is in EDGE compute/Machine Learning

 

[Diehard]

The engineers were not advocating major changes willy-nilly.
For a major change there had to be significant reasons and significant improvements.
Not something that regular going to occur every 5 years.

By late 1980s, 12V had been standard from late 1940s/early 1950s, over 30 years.

Not every increment from 12V to 24V to 48V to 96V would have made sense.
24V probably not enough advantage for disruption caused.
96V is generally considered too high to be safe as a low voltage.




They survived bad decisions for a long time by acting as loose cartels that suppress/kill innovations and disruptors that might impact their domains (profits).


EV1 killed.
Use of NiMH large format battery patents for EVs suppressed. ( GM, then sold to fossil fuel industry).
Lobbying to kill or water-down air pollution reduction regulation.
Lobbying to kill or water-down fuel economy efficiency regulation.

Now promotion of climate change denial or confusion.

---------------------------------------

Polluted Air Shortens Human Lifespans More Than Tobacco, Study Finds India, other South Asian countries suffer biggest losses as China reverses damage; improvements often ‘driven by people’s demands’
Aug. 29, 2023
https://www.wsj.com/health/polluted...espans-more-than-tobacco-study-finds-bbcf8f48

---------------------------------------

I never said they are not evil. I just said they can do business and killing good competing ideas has always been one of the basic pillars of good business in this country. Ask any big business whether it is oil or software.

In fact I argue, "good" and "good business" are more often in conflict than they are in line no matter what the advertisement say.

 

[CyberGus]

lawyers* and doctors**, engineers*** internet posters are notorious for THINKING they understand everything, even absent training or experience in the relevant domain

Fixed it for you

 

[CyberGus]

FYI:

• Engineering staff will always devise brilliant ways to burn cash
• Finance staff will always reject new spending

It's up to the Senior Executives to make a risk assessment and adjudicate.

 

[cvalue13]

Fixed it for you

Potato potato

 

[cvalue13]

FYI:

• Engineering staff will always devise brilliant ways to burn cash
• Finance staff will always reject new spending

It's up to the Senior Executives to make a risk assessment and adjudicate.

now do sales pls

 

[CyberGus]

now do sales pls

 

[CyberGus]

now do sales pls

Best I can come up with is "Sales will always make promises that someone else must fulfill"

 

[BeastSlayer]

FYI:

• Engineering staff will always devise brilliant ways to burn cash
• Finance staff will always reject new spending

It's up to the Senior Executives to make a risk assessment and adjudicate.

LOL, indeed as someone from finance who has this sign off authority, that's when I got trained to say no.

But the story does not end there. My outlook spans 5 to 10 years. I would even allocate big dollars for factory and capital investments if the numbers show long term savings or enhanced profitability.

But, lets also plan for smooth transition as me and the CEO would still want our jobs into the next quarter.

 

[CyberGus]

LOL, indeed as someone from finance who has this sigb off authority, that's when I got trained to say no.

But the story does not end there. My outlook spans 5 to 10 years. I would even allocate big dollars for factory and capital investments if the numbers show long term savings or enhanced profitability.

But, lets also plan for smooth transition as me and the CEO would still want our jobs into the next quarter.

ME: the lab needs a new network switch.
BOSS: ask finance for 8.
ME: but I only need 1 switch
BOSS: tell them you need 4
ME: i thought you said 8
BOSS: …and they will tell you they can’t possibly give you any until next year
ME: I only need 1
BOSS: Act shocked and say you can survive this quarter with only 2
ME: I don’t want 2
BOSS: …and then they will grudgingly give you the 1 you wanted
ME: don’t they know we’re playing this game?!??
BOSS: of course! That’s why you gotta start with 8!!!

 

[cvalue13]

ME: the lab needs a new network switch.
BOSS: ask finance for 8.
ME: but I only need 1 switch
BOSS: tell them you need 4
ME: i thought you said 8
BOSS: …and they will tell you they can’t possibly give you any until next year
ME: I only need 1
BOSS: Act shocked and say you can survive this quarter with only 2
ME: I don’t want 2
BOSS: …and then they will grudgingly give you the 1 you wanted
ME: don’t they know we’re playing this game?!??
BOSS: of course! That’s why you gotta start with 8!!!

Could be worse:

Before the Civil War, Braxton Bragg (later a Confederate general) was assigned to a remote post “out west.” There was a shortage of officers, so he became both a company commander and the post quartermaster. As a company commander, he submitted a re- quest for certain items. As quartermaster, he denied it. As company commander, he appealed to the Commanding General. When the General got the appeal, he exclaimed “My god! Mr. Bragg has argued with every other officer in the U.S. Army, now he is arguing with himself.”

 

[JBee]

Maybe that's why to have a successful innovative company, you have to know something about everything, and stay in loop with all the problems that reduce productivity, not just the ones you want to solve, or are good at solving. EM sleeping on the shop floor to avoid bankruptcy with M3 ramp comes to mind.

Don't be limited by your job title or education. Even "dumb" people can b successful.
The trick is to know the right things, that matter, to affect change.

 

[BeastSlayer]

The auto industry is notorious for lost opportunities and lack of imagination.

The Big 3 was too slow in adapting to oil shortage.

The Japanese picked it up with compacts.

Toyota would have been first with EV with their hybrids.

But it's Tesla that came up with a true EV.

 

[JBee]

I always thought that Toyota's goal for making hybrids was to pave the way to BEV as soon as battery technology and cost would allow them. I think that goal got lost along the way.

But hybrids did spur some critical innovation with many manufacturers adopting it to increase performance whilst reducing consumption. Just alone having regen helps, especially in city driving where pollution is worst. It's just that many didn't urge battery innovation at all so it never came to it. Plus no-one realised just how critical the charging network was for BEV until Tesla did something about it.

Sponsored