Well, well, well...the recently scarce Bob Lutz returns to the blogoteria with this post. And it's an informative one for those of us closely watching GM's design-driven transformation.
The post focuses on a reorganization of the company's "global product-development" process.
Pretty dry toast for red-meat loving bloggers, right?
Nope. Listen:
First, we now have people in place with global responsibility for design, engineering, manufacturing and product planning, and, starting January 1, we will have one single global design and engineering budget. That has never happened before at GM and, believe me, that was a big hindrance to previous efforts to produce component sets, architectures or products that are global in scale.
Single global design and engineering budget...that puts control of product development squarely in Lutz's bailywick; crucial if you're trying to lead a big transformation effort. And, as he says, unprecedented at GM.
Next, he gets into more difficult territory, operation coordination:
Second, by coordinating product development work around the world, we’ll realize the economies of scale that a company the size of GM should. Our 12 engineering centers will be knitted more closely with one another and with our 11 design centers, all working together in lockstep, sharing their knowledge and resources in real time. This type of structure puts us more in line with the way successful automakers should be set up today.
This one gives me a minor case of the organizational bends: 12 engineering and 11 design centers "all working together in lockstep, sharing knowledge and resources in real time"; that, my friends, would be something to see. Maybe, Bob; I'd love to see it, but call me skeptical on this one.
Finally, Lutz wants to place work in what we called in the 90s, "centers of excellence":
The third component to our new system is the fact that we’re putting in place global development centers for all our architectures in regions that have expertise for certain vehicles, and they will shepherd the architectures from cradle to grave. For example, North America will take responsibility for trucks and utilities and derivatives, Europe for midsize cars and Asia for small cars, sub-compacts and the like.
Not a new idea, but still a good one. Let people do what they've demonstrated ability to do well; one size definitely doesn't fit all.
So, let's recap. Single point of control for product development resources, both financial and human. Excellent. Knowledge sharing and operational coordination among a couple of dozen professional centers (typically housing strongly individualistic creative people). Very tough. Distributing work to areas with the passion and expertise for that work. Very good. Overall grade for "change management philosophy": Very good.
Once again, we see a senior executive using a blog to directly lay out the "theory of the case" for internal and external consumption. Good to have you back out here, Bob.
Tags: Design GM Organizational Change
Comments