Ford 1979 vs. Ford 2009: What’s Changed

[PJungnitsch]

Interesting article on Fords transformation:

Ford 1979 vs. Ford 2009: What’s Changed?

By admin
October 3, 2009

So exactly how did Ford achieve quality equal to Toyota? Or are their TV ads misleading, as the ads from decades ago which proclaimed “At Ford Quality Is Job One”? This was the question in my mind as I returned to the Sharonville Transmission Plant after exactly 30 years. A long term friend, who did not jump ship in 1979 as I had done, when it looked like Ford was going to self destruct, got me past the guard post for a tour of the plant. Jerry had seen what he called “a compete transformation of Ford Motor Company” during his 37 years. He said I would not recognize the place.

The physical appearance of the plant was a shocker. In 1979, dull florescent bulbs, covered with oily grime, dangled from a ceiling coated with years of build up of machine generated filth. You could see, but not very well. Now the plant is lighted by clean, high density lighting with reflective covers, spaced close enough to make the inside of the plant as bright as the outside on a sunny day.

There are no clouds of blue-gray machine mist, laced with millions of minute particles of suspended metal. The air is clean and odor free. Every machine is vented to protect the lungs of Ford workers. I smiled to myself as I recalled a short story from Hemmingway from my college days. It was called “A Clean Well Lighted Place.”

But there was something missing. My shoes were not making a sucking sound with each step. That was because the wood block floors, saturated with rotting, stinking oil, are gone. They have been replaced with non slip concrete coated with a reflective epoxy finish, which adds to the brightness of the plant.

There was something else missing: Red Jackets and Coveralls. In 1979 Sharonville was a sea of Red Jackets and ill fitting, wrinkled Coveralls, which defined the side of the fence you were on – management or labor. The Red Jackets had “Ford” emblazoned on one breast pocket and “Supervisor” on the other. In the 70s I wore a Red Jacket.

As a Red Jacket my job was to “get my numbers” and make quota, no matter what. It was my job to bully, intimidate and “write up” men who failed to make quota. Ford would not accept any excuse for failing to “get my numbers” other than the Coveralls were not doing their jobs. Their theory of management, a holdover from the days of Henry Ford, was that workers were lazy and would not produce unless they were afraid of being fired.

The ill-fitting, wrinkled coveralls, issued by Ford, were worn by UAW workers. They came to work each day filled with stress and pent up rage, anticipating the hostile work environment created by management. If pushed too hard by the Red Jackets, the Coveralls would fight back in a thousand, mostly undetectable ways, which severely impacted productivity and quality. If a Red Jacket tried to work with his people he would be viewed as a defector from the management camp, and his days at Ford would be numbered.

But the battlefield conditions at Ford have disappeared. The work environment is relaxed, with no outward sign of tension between management and labor. In fact, management and the UAW are now partners on 76 work teams, with 76 “Team Leaders” which are UAW members. The old Red Jackets have been replaced with “Manufacturing Advisors” whose function is to make sure their teams have everything they need to do their jobs. You cannot distinguish management from labor, and there is neither a necktie nor a wrinkled, ill fitting pair of coveralls to be seen.

Jerry introduced me to the Bargaining Chairman of the UAW. He explained that the old days are gone, and that the competitive global economy necessitates close cooperation between management and labor. There are certainly differences, but they are settled at the bargaining table rather than in plant wide wars.

I shook my head in disbelief. Thirty years ago I concluded that Ford was headed for bankruptcy. I asked Jerry what accounted for this phenomenal change. He gave me a one word answer: Fear.

Everyone saw the handwriting on the wall. At one time Ford had three plants in Cincinnati, GM had two, and a few miles up I-75 Chrysler had a plant. Sharonville now has fewer than one third as many employees as it had in 1979, and all the other auto plants are vacant buildings, with thousands unemployed. Toyota, Honda, and other foreign auto companies now virtually dominate our auto market. Everyone knew that it was change or die.

So how did they do it? They got rid of the hardcore, old school managers and UAW people through retirements and buyouts. A younger, better educated, more reasonable group of people moved to positions of responsibility in the union and at Ford. A woman is now President of UAW Local 863. That would have been unheard of in 1979.

But I wanted to know about quality. It was poor quality that nearly destroyed Ford Motor Company in the 80s when it was hit with the largest recall in automotive history because of defective transmissions. Jerry said “I am glad you asked about quality” as he led me into the midst of the modern, high tech machines that replaced the noisy, smoky old clunkers from the 70s.

A UAW team leader explained why transmissions from Sharonville today are second to none. It was not his explanation that impressed me. It was his sense of pride, commitment, and ownership. I watched his work team, and it was unrecognizable from my experience in the 70s. If the parts did not meet quality specifications, someone would hit the “stop” button, and the line would not start up again until the problem was solved. In the 70s if a worker hit the “stop” button and it was not break or lunch, he would be written up.

Work Teams have a “no fault forward” philosophy where parts are checked continuously so they cannot cause problems for other operations further down the production line. Fifty TV cameras constantly monitor quality. There is a “Transmission Birth History” which details every phase of manufacture on each individual transmission. It is a 50 page document. Work Team members rotate jobs, so that every team member is trained on every operation. Maintenance is integrated into each work team.

This is so different from the 70s that it would have to be called revolutionary. UAW jobs were narrowly defined. A man did his job, and his job only. If his job was down for any reason he sat and waited for it to be back up. It was common for men to sleep in bathroom stalls when their jobs were not running. To assign them other work could ignite a war that could last for a week.

Maintenance in the 70s revolved around “Maintenance Outposts.” There was an outpost in each zone. Every department in the zone was dependent on the outpost for electricians, pipe fitters, etc. If an outpost had two electricians, but three departments were down needing electrical repair, one department would stay down until repairs were completed in the other down department, and the crew would read magazines, sleep in the men’s room, or play cards.

If a down department needed a pipe fitter, and he found that there was also an electrical problem, he had to go back to the outpost to request the next available electrician, even if he could fix it. He was a pipe fitter, and pipe fitters do not fix electrical problems. It was a terribly inefficient system.

When I thanked Jerry for the tour he mentioned that very few of the people who now work at the Sharonville Transmission Plant have any idea how bad it was in the 70s, and therefore do not realize how good they have it today. This is a new generation of auto workers who have cut the shackles of the past, and they are producing quality that is second to none.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ford-1979-vs-ford-2009-what%E2%80%99s-changed/#more-331145

[articsteve]

The assembly is pretty well even across the board, IMO.  The quality is in the components and the design of those components, all from third party suppliers.  Re-visit a car in the 6th year.  Then assess quality.  The domestics will not be top tier.  They will be better than they were 5/10 years ago, but their designs are still on the cheap side.

[Greg B.]

Give it up, Stevie. Everybody's on to your act.

[johngenx]

Steve's right, but it's changing.  Up until recently, GM strove to create margins in their low priced line by chiseling the suppliers to the bone.  This mean that suppliers were shipping shoddy parts thanks to GM's constant downward price pressure.

GM and Chrysler were the worst offenders, and Ford stopped this stupidity some years ago.  It shows, and in a big way.

Today, I would strongly consider a Ford product but for one problem:  most of the dealers are still old-world high-pressure hell-holes.  I'm not saying Honda/Toyota don't share this, but it seems less prevalent to me.

I see a strong future for Ford, GM has as good a chance as anyone, and god only knows how Chrysler will survive.

[Mitlov]

Nice article!  Thanks for posting.

[articsteve]

Give it up, Stevie. Everybody's on to your act.

Rented a 2010 maliboo recently.  Assembly very nice and ride smooth/solid.  However vehicle still plagued by cheapo engineering/design:

brake/rear signal shares same lens/bulb

key fob separate from key

vehicle alarm beep uses vehicle horn which is ridiculously loud and annoying.

trunk has no lock out feature which sucks for traveling.

Next time I'll aim for a Fusion. 

[Juke1]

Give it up, Stevie. Everybody's on to your act.

Rented a 2010 maliboo recently.  Assembly very nice and ride smooth/solid.  However vehicle still plagued by cheapo engineering/design:

brake/rear signal shares same lens/bulb

key fob separate from key



vehicle alarm beep uses vehicle horn which is ridiculously loud and annoying.

trunk has no lock out feature which sucks for traveling.

Next time I'll aim for a Fusion. 

Malibu?  >>>>>> Ford 1979 vs. Ford 2009: What’s Changed?

[tenpenny]

I found a couple of bits of the article particularly interesting:

 Their theory of management, a holdover from the days of Henry Ford, was that workers were lazy and would not produce unless they were afraid of being fired.
...
I shook my head in disbelief. Thirty years ago I concluded that Ford was headed for bankruptcy. I asked Jerry what accounted for this phenomenal change. He gave me a one word answer: Fear.
Everyone knew that it was change or die.

In other words, the workers used to fear management.  Now the workers and management fear an outside threat, and are working together.

[Thinking Out Loud]

Any enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine!   

[toolatecrew]

I think that all manuyfacturers now have cleaner more modern plants than in the 70s. I don't see Ford being different there.

Unfortunately all Unionized companies still manage by fear. For the last while it was Unions who used the fear. Fear of strike or slowdown. Now its back to the other side. Ford is now using fear of lost jobs to get concessions from the CAW (as they should given that other manufactures have the same).

What makes Ford different from Crysler and GM? Maybe picking the right partner? The Fusion is held up as a paragon of Domestic Midsized sedan quality. Its a Mazda Partnered platform. Maybe its a factor maybe its not?

[TopGun]

Give it up, Stevie. Everybody's on to your act.

Classic "Crisis curve" management...don't do anything until you absolutely have to.  Hey, that resembles how most humans act doesn't it?  Looks like Toyota is facing the same challenge:

Toyota chief admits company is in rough shape, "grasping for salvation"

According to Automotive News, Toyoda says his company is "grasping for salvation," which is stage four of five outlined in Collins' book, with Toyota having already experienced Stage One, "Hubris Born of Success;" Stage Two, "Undisciplined Pursuit of More;" and Stage Three, "Denial of risk and peril." What's Stage Five? "Capitulation to Irrelevance or Death." Yikers.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/02/report-toyota-chief-admits-company-is-in-rough-shape-grasping/

[Mitlov]

What makes Ford different from Crysler and GM? Maybe picking the right partner? The Fusion is held up as a paragon of Domestic Midsized sedan quality. Its a Mazda Partnered platform. Maybe its a factor maybe its not?

I think the Fusion actually had better Consumer Reports reliability ratings than the first-gen Mazda6.  The Fusion consistently got "far above average" ratings, whereas the Mazda6 I think got average or slightly above average.  Plus, the vast majority of Ford models are doing well in Consumer Reports reliability ratings right now, and only a couple share platforms with Mazda.  So I think it's wrong to attribute Ford's reliability to Mazda.

[Wolverine]

Great article, thx for sharing.

Talking about third party suppliers, one has to remember that usually the design is made "in house" or designed by the supplier with strict instruction from the client.

[toolatecrew]

What makes Ford different from Crysler and GM? Maybe picking the right partner? The Fusion is held up as a paragon of Domestic Midsized sedan quality. Its a Mazda Partnered platform. Maybe its a factor maybe its not?

I think the Fusion actually had better Consumer Reports reliability ratings than the first-gen Mazda6.  The Fusion consistently got "far above average" ratings, whereas the Mazda6 I think got average or slightly above average.  Plus, the vast majority of Ford models are doing well in Consumer Reports reliability ratings right now, and only a couple share platforms with Mazda.  So I think it's wrong to attribute Ford's reliability to Mazda.

I don't mean to attribute their reliability to Mazda. The Taurus platform was shared with Volvo.

I guess maybe I meant that if you have partners that have decent product that it helps. Regardless I give all credit to Ford. There are some of their products I would actually consider buying (which is not the case for GM or Chrysler).

Correct me if I'm wrong but Ford has fewer models and brands than GM don't they. Maybe that helps by allowing them to concentrate? Maybe they learned their lesson after the intial Focus debacle? Sometimes a big faliure (the massive Focus recalls) is actually used as a wake up call that results in sucess in the future.

I say go ford (and please don't screw up the Fiesta or the new Focus by making them "americanized")

[MKII]

"How Ford Drives America: Behind the Scenes at Ford Motor Company" features a look at the many aspects of Ford that have allowed it to survive and thrive over its 100+ years. Ford's restructuring efforts, new products, technologies, safety systems, safety testing, designer inspirations, "green" products and initiatives, as well as the Fiesta Movement, Ford Motor Company Fund's community programs and a proud family of multi-generational Ford employees are featured.

Part 1: http://mms.tveyes.com/MediaCenter/36...9_20.00.00.wmv
Part 2: http://mms.tveyes.com/MediaCenter/36...9_20.11.10.wmv
Part 3: http://mms.tveyes.com/MediaCenter/36...9_20.17.15.wmv
Part 4: http://mms.tveyes.com/MediaCenter/36...9_20.26.55.wmv
Part 5: http://mms.tveyes.com/MediaCenter/36...9_20.34.39.wmv
Part 6: http://mms.tveyes.com/MediaCenter/36...9_20.40.48.wmv
Part 7: http://mms.tveyes.com/MediaCenter/36...9_20.50.16.wmv
Part 8: http://mms.tveyes.com/MediaCenter/36...9_20.54.58.wmv

[Juke1]

I think that all manuyfacturers now have cleaner more modern plants than in the 70s. I don't see Ford being different there.

Unfortunately all Unionized companies still manage by fear. For the last while it was Unions who used the fear. Fear of strike or slowdown. Now its back to the other side. Ford is now using fear of lost jobs to get concessions from the CAW (as they should given that other manufactures have the same).

What makes Ford different from Crysler and GM? Maybe picking the right partner? The Fusion is held up as a paragon of Domestic Midsized sedan quality. Its a Mazda Partnered platform. Maybe its a factor maybe its not?

What makes Ford different from Crysler and GM?

Mr. Boeing, someone from a world where shortcuts are not allowed

[Greg B.]

What makes Ford different from Crysler and GM? Maybe picking the right partner? The Fusion is held up as a paragon of Domestic Midsized sedan quality. Its a Mazda Partnered platform. Maybe its a factor maybe its not?

Let's not get carried away. The Fusion is a mid-pack performer at best in that class. The 4-banger version gets consistently mediocre reviews and the V-6, while better, still trails the class leaders in many respects. I know when I was car-shopping recently that I looked long and hard at a number of Ford/Lincoln products and none of them impressed me much in terms of material quality or design. I suspect a lot of Ford's recent sales success is about not having to have gone thru bankruptcy proceedings and the resultant bad publicity, along with a strong inventory position since their plants were able to keep operating.

[Mitlov]

What makes Ford different from Crysler and GM? Maybe picking the right partner? The Fusion is held up as a paragon of Domestic Midsized sedan quality. Its a Mazda Partnered platform. Maybe its a factor maybe its not?

Let's not get carried away. The Fusion is a mid-pack performer at best in that class. The 4-banger version gets consistently mediocre reviews and the V-6, while better, still trails the class leaders in many respects. I know when I was car-shopping recently that I looked long and hard at a number of Ford/Lincoln products and none of them impressed me much in terms of material quality or design. I suspect a lot of Ford's recent sales success is about not having to have gone thru bankruptcy proceedings and the resultant bad publicity, along with a strong inventory position since their plants were able to keep operating.

I was talking about reliability; I'm thinking Greg B. may have been talking about the same thing.  According to Consumer Reports, this has been true, year after year.  The Fusion is superbly reliable and has remained so since its introduction in 2005 (model year 2006).  Haters have said "sure it'll be reliable for a couple years, but then it'll fall apart, you just wait," but that has yet to happen.

As for overall pleasant-ness (from interior materials to driving experience), reviews of the pre-facelift model have been all over the board.  Some think it's so-so; I've seen it come in near the bottom of the pack; but I personally thought that the loaded V6 Milan I drove was truly superb for a non-luxury family sedan.  Excellent suspension; predictable, communicative steering; perfectly respectable interior materials; and a driver's seat as supportive and comfortable as those from Volvo and Mercedes. 

As for overall-pleasant-ness, the post-facelift model has gotten very good reviews so far.  It sounds competitive with the class-leaders in every front.

[Flinter]

So how did they do it? They got rid of the hardcore, old school managers and UAW people through retirements and buyouts. A younger, better educated, more reasonable group of people moved to positions of responsibility in the union and at Ford. A woman is now President of UAW Local 863. That would have been unheard of in 1979.

I think this is key. There is no room today for the old school testosterone driven attitudes in management and unions. It is poisonous to making a quality product because the focus is not on the product or customer. Instead it is all about the dysfunctional relationship between management and the unions.

Glad to hear that Ford is realizing this.

[toolatecrew]

What makes Ford different from Crysler and GM? Maybe picking the right partner? The Fusion is held up as a paragon of Domestic Midsized sedan quality. Its a Mazda Partnered platform. Maybe its a factor maybe its not?

Let's not get carried away. The Fusion is a mid-pack performer at best in that class. The 4-banger version gets consistently mediocre reviews and the V-6, while better, still trails the class leaders in many respects. I know when I was car-shopping recently that I looked long and hard at a number of Ford/Lincoln products and none of them impressed me much in terms of material quality or design. I suspect a lot of Ford's recent sales success is about not having to have gone thru bankruptcy proceedings and the resultant bad publicity, along with a strong inventory position since their plants were able to keep operating.

You did not read what I read:

"Domestic Midsized sedan quality"

Name me another domestic Midsized sedan that has scored as high on quality and reliability as the Fusion.

As for the Fusio itself. It sold well before the no bankruptcy thing. It provided good value. Lower price, good quality reliability. Good space and above average handeling. Yes engines did lag behind some competion. But as an overall package it was pretty good for the $