Automotive News [AN, sub] has not one but two article's about Detroit's [supposed] design excellence– actual or eventual. First, former Car and Driver editor William Jeanes wants us to know that GM's sun will come out tomorrow is out, design-wise. "Like that hint of springtime, it is suddenly apparent that a design renaissance has taken hold at GM… No one, not even Lutz, can change perception overnight. But you have to start somewhere, and he and the GM designers have rolled a grenade into the room…" Next, Steven Cole Smith is pleased to report that the non-car guys heading Ford and Chrysler are staying the Hell away from the design studios– lest they screw-up the aforementioned design renaissance. "'Let's face it,' said a Ford executive who asked not to be identified. 'Alan [Mulally] has bigger problems to deal with than how the headlights should look on an F-150. Plus, he's proven that he delegates responsibility to those who deserve it, and the design staff deserves it.'" In case you prefer a non-fiction quote, Chrysler 300 designer Ralph Gilles says Nardelli's been a good boy. "Bob… seems to be one of those guys who knows what he doesn't know… He's keen on what we do. His cautiousness is very encouraging."
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
“But you have to start somewhere, and he and the GM designers have rolled a grenade into the room… left for Hyundai, Kia, and Mazda”
There, fixed that.
Let’s hope reality matches the PR. My Ph.D. thesis was largely about the damage done when product decisions are made by those with power rather than those with relevant knowledge.
Hasn’t one of the problems at US automakers been that the top executives all imagine themselves to be design geniuses and make the final decisions as to what goes to market? Stories are legion of vehicles held back because the boss wants something changed.
It would be far better for the top dogs not to put their noses into areas where they don’t really know what the **** they are doing. Ford and Chrysler might be onto something by bring outsiders in to run the show.
Wherever you work in the automotive industry, you always have executives with no design training or artistic backgrounds thinking they know it all. The worst part is unless you have a real strong design leader, they always win and design has to buckle to the ideals of the upper echelons.
My Ph.D. thesis was largely about the damage done when product decisions are made by those with power rather than those with relevant knowledge.
I’d love to read that, actually. Really…can you link to it?
Back the article. It is a pity the authors of those quotes didn’t offer up an example or two. I’d love to hear them.
Michael Karesh :
So your saying your thesis was a study on Bush’s presidency?
Sorry, had to…
Michael Karesh
I would like to echo Nick R’s request.
Granted, a Ph.D. thesis might be a bit over my head, but it sounds interesting.
Michael Karesh: Let me third that. Sounds intriguing.
My Ph.D. thesis was largely about the damage done when product decisions are made by those with power rather than those with relevant knowledge.
I’d love to read that, actually. Really…can you link to it?
Seconded!
Well, until Mr. Karesh puts his entire thesis online, here’s the executive summary.
Here’s a challenge to GM and Chrysler (and Ford): create a great design… two generations in a row!
I would be willing to bet that Mr. Gilles had little to do with such atrocities as the Sebring and Compass. Or if he did, he was overruled by management and marketing students saying that Chryslers need to have hood strakes.
The 300 still holds up beautifully and the new minivans, while “different”, really are striking in person. It pushes “love it or hate it” to (whatever maximum there could be with a minivan) with the exception of the everyone-hates-it TWAT GM minivans.
It would be fascinating to get a truthful interview with him on this subject; not that we should expect that while he’s employed there.