Thursday, September 07, 2006
How can Ford recover? Is Alan Mulally the right guy?
Bill Ford stepped down this week as CEO of Ford and was replaced by former Boeing executive VP Alan Mulally. Among the interesting tidbits to come out this week is that Alan drives a Lexus. An outsider to the industry could be good or bad. It could be good in that he'll bring a fresh perspective in how to attack what ails Ford.
So how would I fix Ford????????
1) Figure out what brands you want to continue to own/support Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda, Volvo, Land Rover, Jag U Ar, Aston Martin. My suggestion is to sell the high end stuff (Land Rover, Jaguar, and Aston Martin). These will always be niche brands and might be fun for a sound company, but not for one that can't do much of anything right.). I would look strongly at the overlap at Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury. If you're going to do a high end brand, it truly has to distinguish itself from your entry level brand. GM's done well by Cadillac by making those models stand out both visually and with the technology in them. Mercury's another issue. Does the world really need two of each car with a slightly different finish on the second? Couldn't Ford just offer multiple trim levels? Does Volvo still exist? For a car that seemed to be everywhere for years, it seems to have lost its appeal around the Louisville area, at least. VW seems to be going after the "safety car" trophy in its ads, so how Volvo distinguishes itself will be important. I'm sure it still has loyal fans, but it seems adrift in a sea of other brands. I think if Ford is to succeed, it has to figure out how to make Mazda a major player. Their cars are appealing and fresh looking, and fun to drive. They stand out among the models that Ford's lineup offers.
2) Trim your model lines This seems easiest to do by cutting the Mercury line and Lincoln models that are too close to Ford Models.
3) Freshen your designs and cycle them more quickly How many years was the Taurus popular? Why is it that I only ever saw two versions of it on the road? What about the Escape and Focus. Have they changed much at all since they were created years ago? When you buy a car and like it, you're likely to buy it again. If it takes six or seven years for that car to be freshened, you're probably not going to buy a new one until it is refreshed or redesigned.
4) Quality IS job 1 Ford's cars are better, but they are still not Japanese better. The Focus was a well reviewed car that was almost killed by having more recalls than a Florida election. If the Japanese can figure out how to make them better, and Hyundai/Kia can turn around their disaster in the space of a few short years, Ford should be able to do the same. I'm guessing Ford has the following barriers to quality: cheaper materials (you gotta cut costs somewhere), corporate culture (either their workers don't care as much about the product or the powers that be at the plant don't enable them to fix problems or make suggestions, or both), failure to learn from the past.
5) Improvement must be continuous Did anyone at GM or Ford remember the 70s, when they were caught with their pants down and a fleet full of gas guzzlers? Honda and Toyota did. Despite low gas prices, they focused on raising their numbers. Why? Because it was a way to make their cars better. GM and Ford focused on their cash cows in SUVs, probably because it was easier to do in the short term. And what about technology? Items that are standard in Japanese cars (even stuff as simple as a remote fuel door) are options or not available in comparable domestic cars. Why?
So how would I fix Ford????????
1) Figure out what brands you want to continue to own/support Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda, Volvo, Land Rover, Jag U Ar, Aston Martin. My suggestion is to sell the high end stuff (Land Rover, Jaguar, and Aston Martin). These will always be niche brands and might be fun for a sound company, but not for one that can't do much of anything right.). I would look strongly at the overlap at Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury. If you're going to do a high end brand, it truly has to distinguish itself from your entry level brand. GM's done well by Cadillac by making those models stand out both visually and with the technology in them. Mercury's another issue. Does the world really need two of each car with a slightly different finish on the second? Couldn't Ford just offer multiple trim levels? Does Volvo still exist? For a car that seemed to be everywhere for years, it seems to have lost its appeal around the Louisville area, at least. VW seems to be going after the "safety car" trophy in its ads, so how Volvo distinguishes itself will be important. I'm sure it still has loyal fans, but it seems adrift in a sea of other brands. I think if Ford is to succeed, it has to figure out how to make Mazda a major player. Their cars are appealing and fresh looking, and fun to drive. They stand out among the models that Ford's lineup offers.
2) Trim your model lines This seems easiest to do by cutting the Mercury line and Lincoln models that are too close to Ford Models.
3) Freshen your designs and cycle them more quickly How many years was the Taurus popular? Why is it that I only ever saw two versions of it on the road? What about the Escape and Focus. Have they changed much at all since they were created years ago? When you buy a car and like it, you're likely to buy it again. If it takes six or seven years for that car to be freshened, you're probably not going to buy a new one until it is refreshed or redesigned.
4) Quality IS job 1 Ford's cars are better, but they are still not Japanese better. The Focus was a well reviewed car that was almost killed by having more recalls than a Florida election. If the Japanese can figure out how to make them better, and Hyundai/Kia can turn around their disaster in the space of a few short years, Ford should be able to do the same. I'm guessing Ford has the following barriers to quality: cheaper materials (you gotta cut costs somewhere), corporate culture (either their workers don't care as much about the product or the powers that be at the plant don't enable them to fix problems or make suggestions, or both), failure to learn from the past.
5) Improvement must be continuous Did anyone at GM or Ford remember the 70s, when they were caught with their pants down and a fleet full of gas guzzlers? Honda and Toyota did. Despite low gas prices, they focused on raising their numbers. Why? Because it was a way to make their cars better. GM and Ford focused on their cash cows in SUVs, probably because it was easier to do in the short term. And what about technology? Items that are standard in Japanese cars (even stuff as simple as a remote fuel door) are options or not available in comparable domestic cars. Why?
// posted by Rob @ 6:04 AM 
