There's something reassuring about talking to employees who work for a really large company. You can almost hear a well-stocked 401k plan in their voice. Now I'm not saying that Ford suffers from the kind of complacency that brought it to the brink in the first (second?) place. But it is certainly true that group think is the enemy of relative quality in all things. So I want to thank Ford for opening a dialogue with TTAC, which is, after all, a mighty hostile environment for an industry used to well-paid cheerleaders and toothless hacks. I invite Ford to continue on this openness arc and allow their employees to post on the Focus review and/or anything else that captures their attention. Of course, we're years away from that kind of non-spun honesty and PR-less transparency. But I'll say this: the first car company that fully embraces the internet in this way will have an enormous advantage over its competitors. And that's down to one simple reason: it will help them build better cars.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
If I were use these interviews as an idea of where Ford are going, then I can only deduce one thing:
They’re looking at a lot of things!
Whenever Mr Farago asked a question (i.e “Don’t you have someone at Ford to look at the quality of the product?”) they nearly always replied “Well, we’re certainly looking at a range of things, etc”.
There you go.
Ford, we look at a lot of stuff!
They got rid of the spare tire and replaced it with a air pump? My Hyundai came with a full size spare mounted on a rim that matches the other 4. I’m sorry, but I find that really unacceptable. An owner might not need to repair the transmission on the road but a flat tire, evena complete blowout, is a real possiblity and using a airpump to get off the road is like using a bandaid on a lost limb.
No wonder no one trusts Ford, when any complaints and concerns are deflected and ignored by PR flacks. If not for those people, such as what's-her-name, we wouldn't have the current Ford F**kus. I love her response to RF's question on whether there's anyone at Ford who looks in the corners. Her answer pretty much implies a resounding "No," or more specifically, "No, but we look at other things… like how much I'm getting paid."
It doesn’t bode well for Ford that their Manager of Global Quality Data Systems wouldn’t personally be bothered by A) the lack of simple wire loom on the wiring harness under the hood instead of tape and B) said tape beginning to unravel right off the showroom floor.
Granted this guy is just a number cruncher, but seriously, he should be a quality nut.
Someone should tell the engineers there that it gets hot under the hood sometimes, causing duct tape to either unravel or catch fire. The WSJ had an article on how the sebring was being killed off after Press got in and saw the tacky plastic and horrible seats. The overall poor quality of the vehicle and it’s role as rental car means it’s done. kudos to TTAC for beating this drum for 3 years.
RF Good podcast. She did seem a little like his “handler”. I hope Mike is as sincere as he sounds and there are many others like him at Ford. NEXT…we need to talk to engineering, ask them the tough questions.
I have to give credit to Mike for coming on the show. No doubt, TTAC is a tough gig.
I can only hope that Ford realizes that TTAC is the place they need to be. It’s tough love time, and Ford is so beyond PR spin and media coddling.
America is a very forgiving nation. Admit your mistakes, move forward with passion, and we will love you again.
That was fascinating, good work Mr. Farago. Why can’t these corporations say anything not Orwellian? Ford is down to about 13% of the market and still this corporate speak. They may as well as hire Bill Clinton to be their spokesperson, I can hear it now: “Q: Mr. Clinton, is it true Ford cars will have air pumps and not spare tires?” A;”Depends what is is”
Tell us again what do you mean by Bold Moves?
Wow, Ford in a nutshell.
Marketing/PR > Engineering/Quality Control.
Mike is clearly subordinate to the PR flack – he never says “I think this question would be better addressed by Anne” or “Perhaps you’d like to take this question.” The PR handler jumps in whenever she wants, even mid-sentence. Her tone is simultaneously patronizing and defensive: “We’d LOVE to explore that, but… it’s not fair to the company, blah blah.”
Overall, not a very confident interview, certainly not one by a company whose quality is “right up there with the big players.”
Even quality automakers chisel in places they think customers won’t look or don’t care about. Our Toyota Camry had a flimsy fiberboard spare tire well cover that soon deformed. We made a plywood replacement.
There were a few things I noted about this interview:
1) Mike continually said that the data he collected was pushed out to the factories. Not to the engineering departments? Perhaps that was implied, but I have learned to not assume an implication.
2) Alan is standardizing the data collection system. Kudos. A few decades late, but I guess you have to start sometime. Now they can start comparing fruit to fruit, rather than to vegetables (while arguing whether the tomato is a fruit or a vegetable).
3) On appearance as a quality measure – I was disappointed that Mike attempted to justify his response with a story about how reliable Fords are, and how he never had to open the hood of his car(s). Okay, fine. So what? Neatness is a quality, and certainly wire looms that bring to mind those made by the Prince of Darkness will not help the Fordward cause.
4) Mike said the data was sent out daily. Was any fix info ever returned? Was any ever expected? Just because you can measure something does not mean that you should, or that it is meaningful, and certainly does not imply that anybody else cares about your data. Large companies tend to suffer stratification, and Ford I suspect is not an exception (unless that is it “suffers from exceptional stratification”).
5) On the issue of the small pieces of velcro(r) that hold the cover down – I do not believe that all of the measurements in the world will rectify this issue. Using velcro(r) in the first place is bad news – over the lifetime of the car, it will fail, the ends will stick up, etc. This is probably an area where velcro(r) was specified, and the engineering response was “it meets spec”, and the bean counters say: “it meets spec”, and nothing is done to improve the matter. Automobiles are one place I do not believe should ever employ velcro(r) – it simply will not last the expected lifetime of the vehicle.
6) Nice try at snowing us with the F-150 quality data, Mike. Just how many of thosee F-150’s that were surveyed have gone into fleet use? 10%? Probably less. So, don’t use the “some of those vehicles see hard use” when the vast majority are used as cars (Lincoln Blackwood, anyone?).
Bruce
Good interview! The handler was really annoying though. Ford really does do a good job, nowadays, of tackling warranty issues and quality concerns (whose fixes are later cost saved out). Unfortunately, they are still in react mode rather than building the quality in from the start.
Robert Farago: So I want to thank Ford for opening a dialogue with TTAC, which is, after all, a mighty hostile environment for an industry used to well-paid cheerleaders and toothless hacks. I invite Ford to continue on this openness arc and allow their employees to post on the Focus review and/or anything else that captures their attention.
Major props to Ford for entering into a dialog with The Truth About Cars.
Nice to hear from them via TTAC!
And a ‘thank you’ to TTAC for The Truth, as always.
I would love to hear some “deep throat” style interviews with folks in the engineering, marketing, PR, etc., departments at the major manufacturers. Disguise their voices, let them really reveal some dirt about what goes on between the creation of the beautiful concept and the manufacture of the showroom dog.
I would also like to hear you grilling some Ford product manager like ahi tuna about why they are not bringing their excellent Euro-models (S-Max, Mondeo, Focus, anyone?) here, not to mention their diesels (S-Max with diesel= 36/54MPG!) WTF are they waiting for? Oil is not going to suddenly plummet to 20$ a barrel, making their pickup/SUV line-up suddenly viable again.
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned this yet, but at the end of the interview RF asks the Ford fellow how close they are to the finish line, using a scale of 1-10 where 10 is where they want to be.
He says their processes are at a 10, product at 8.
Ask the same question of the guy at Toyota that does the same thing, and his answer is “There is no finish line.”
Until the domestics get this fundamental difference in philosophy they will never catch up.
dean:
Well noticed. I was expecting “there is no finish line” type statement as well.
dean/RF:
I noticed that too. At my old job, I had a little exposure to Six Sigma through a newly promoted engineer (black belt). One of the core principles of achieving quality is the chase. You set a goal everyone knows is unattainable (zero defects, zero excuses), and strive for that goal (i.e. no finish line). Either he didn’t fully understand your question or he isn’t the person I would want running my QA program. This guy should be a quality ninja. He sounded a bit defensive. The jist I came away with was “Ford has sucked for a long time, and now that we are being beaten up by the Japanese, we are really serious about doing as well as they do.”
Great interview, here’s to TTAC and Ford for establishing dialogue. I’d be great to hear from more manufacturers along quality issues.
GM’s abysmal reputation for quality, reliability and durability and its plummeting market share flow from designing cars for an 80,000-mile service life. Ford and Chrysler likely do similar value engineering.
It used to be, for example, that key parts were designed to last only 80,000 miles. That has increased, say GM executives, to well over 100,000 miles, with many parts specified to last 120,000 miles.
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/sep2006/bw20060906_198888.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives
becurb : 4) Mike said the data was sent out daily. Was any fix info ever returned? Was any ever expected? Just because you can measure something does not mean that you should, or that it is meaningful, and certainly does not imply that anybody else cares about your data. Large companies tend to suffer stratification, and Ford I suspect is not an exception (unless that is it “suffers from exceptional stratification”). i think this is the crux of the problem. kudos to ford for realizing that they need to collect the data but there needs to be a rigorous system that makes sure that the problems are properly addressed quickly. when apple computer ships a product with a design flaw it is very quickly noticed by their users and almost immediately there will be feedback on several internet forums about the issue. apple rarely acknowledges the issue but the issue usually disappears from newly shipping units within months if not weeks. when ford has a problem rollovers, electrical fires, etc it takes them years to stop shipping cars with the same issues. it's simply inexcusable. what are they doing to make the quality feedback cycle faster?
RF – Great installment. Congratulations to Ford for even allowing this type of interaction. This is as far from the world of “Special Advertising” sections as one can get.
I am very surprised to hear that more emphasis is not put on perceived quality vs. actual number of defects. Having a great quality control program for cheaply perceived products can’t be the road to success. I am not in the automotive manufacturing business but I would think you need both. Is it their intent to have a highly efficient QC feedback system to simple learn what the consumer has already told them in their buying decision (i.e. buying a Honda)? What is Ford doing with this data? Does it only go to Mazda engineers? Land Rover and Jaguar must make this guy crazy…
I’m really happy with Ford for participating in this interview. It’s so rare that auto companies speak to the masses in anything other than a press release. They knew that Farago would throw some toughies their way, but they were still willing to step into a vulnerable position and answer those things on the spot.
I sort of felt like Mike may have wanted to be a little more open and direct in his responses, but with big-brother from PR watching over his shoulder he had to be careful. It’s too bad, because it seems like he actually cares about quality more than they let him.
Gardiner Westbound :
It used to be, for example, that key parts were designed to last only 80,000 miles. That has increased, say GM executives, to well over 100,000 miles, with many parts specified to last 120,000 miles.
That sure explains the problems on the GM cars I used to own. Money pits from 75k mileage to 100k mileage.
RF.
Thanks for setting up and conducting that interview. Very interesting. Perhaps I’m a sucker, but it did restore “some” confidence in any future Ford I might consider purchasing. That’s a good thing for Ford.
Though I was momentarily startled when that lady first chimed in.