GM Inside News Forum banner

GM to split engineering into 2 divisions

27K views 60 replies 35 participants last post by  oldmember2 
#1 ·
GM to split engineering into 2 divisions with new leaders; Calabrese to retire
Mike Colias
Automotive News
April 22, 2014

DETROIT -- General Motors is replacing its head of engineering and will divide its vehicle engineering organization into two divisions in a shakeup that the company says will improve quality and safety in the wake of its recall crisis.

John Calabrese, 55, vice president of global vehicle engineering since April 2011, will retire, GM said in a statement.

GM said it will divide vehicle engineering into two organizations: Global Product Integrity and Global Components and Subsystems.

Ken Morris, 47, now executive director of chassis engineering at GM, will head the product integrity unit. Ken Kelzer, 51, who now leads powertrain engineering in Europe, will take over the components and subsystems group.

CONTINUE AT AUTONEWS.COM
 
See less See more
#3 ·
They should hire outside the organization, IMO. Unless something changes with the quality of the components such as the continually faulty steering systems and weak suspension parts such as composite sway bar end links, etc. GM will continue to have quality control issues.
Something is either wrong with GM's engineering specs, the suppliers, or the bean counters at GM (or all 3)
 
#6 ·
Not sure why your comment made me think of Rex Kwan Do!

The first thing I think of here is fragmentation. I can only imagine the back and forth between these to entities within GM. Nothing will be efficient.

Hopefully this will eliminate the chance of a disaster ever happening again.
 
#45 ·
I agree ... More bureaucracy and the Left and Right not knowing what the other is doing or heading in the same direction.

I fear suppliers are going to be in for a field day of fun when both side of the company come for a group visit.

Can't they all just work together with some quality oversight so that no dangerous judgments are being made?
 
#9 ·
This is a great move.

Ken Morris is a member of GMI and was the engineer responsible for the original CTS. He was also the project engineer for the CTS-V. (Somewhere in the GMI archives, there should be a picture of Ken at the unveiling of the original CTS-V.)

I'm not sure of all his corporate moves, but he was the "Executive Director of Vehicle Integration, Proving Grounds & Performance Division". I believe that Ken is a car guy and someone who believes that GM vehicles should be able to perform with the best. Over at Edmunds in 2002, I remember Ken asking for comments from the people who bought a CTS that year. He made the effort to learn about the good and the bad about the CTS from the owners, the people who actually drove them.

I don't think that GM could have made a better choice for someone to lead the Product Integrity Unit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: megeebee
#52 ·
He made an effort to learn about the 2003 CTS's problems? That sounds good. Then why didn't he doing anything about them over the 5 year model run? Chronically bad differentials and engine mounts.
 
#10 · (Edited)
I am in no position to coment on how to run a complex organization like GM, but it would seem to me that having engineering organizations tied to brands might be the better way to go?
So perhaps have it this way

1. Cadillac Engineering on its own
2. Buick Opel Engineering Holden on their own
3.Chevrolet GMC Engineering on their own
4. Have an in-house performance division for all brands
5. GM powertrains on its own to develop powertrains and the brands can customer Mize them for their own use.
6. GM Software division based in silicon valley & Other technology centers like Sorrento valley.
7. Safety systems engineering.


The have no holy grail Any Brand can use any program to derive a product from it or improve upon another one. Having followed GM a long time, there seem to be a culture of brilliant innovation and tenacity inhibited by a culture that is risk averse and there is a tension between the two. There is also a lifers are protected despite their mediocrity.

Hopefully Mark Reuss can shake things up somewhat especially in design and innovation and differentiation in powertrains.
 
#15 ·
Took the words right outta my mouf.

There are other choices.

1. Spend more time with family.
2. Pursue other interests.
3. Has hot invention in the pipeline and told GM to get skrood!
 
#16 ·
to me this sounds like it would make the issue worse
IE the component people deem the ignition is OK and close that project and NOW the Cobalt project in VEH integration take a crack at it and ONLY now determine the part is NOT suitable requiring
the component DEVISION to re open that project delaying there NEXT project OR the Vehicle group to work around the deficiency as best as they can
 
#19 · (Edited)
I think you get my drift, the thing is, in my own business, managing a few SKU's to launch, with all the different things that go into it can be quite complex, so, I imagine there is more to things in a complex thing as vehicle development.. Bottom line is, GM as is now is not equipped to compete very well. They have a exposed product line, incomplete, they take too long to launch derivatives (for example, No V series from Alpha 3 years down) their cake is being eaten for them. Then there is the indecisions about everything. How long has Ford being eating their cake on ecoboost?

There is the raptor, Jeep, yet you have a whole GMC division with an extremely great market position, yet you do not exploit it to make money. People are too afraid to take risk. On the other side, there is Kia Soul, there is K900, and Genesis, while buick is still struggling to decide what to do, yet with Opel, Holden, Korea and China, there is a Market for RWD vehicles if you execute properly... but nooo.. Detroit knows it all..

Mark Reuss is probably been wiped out by all the witch hunts. Then there is Ed Welburn, all his design mojo is gone.. its time for someone else to run that house. I get the diversity thing, but at this point it would seem Ed would work better at chip foose design that at GM.
 
#22 · (Edited)
In regards to engineering scales of economy Vs differentiation, the process should follow:
1) stakeholder input into vehicle envelopes to be covered and any features required
2) engineer basic modules - framing, chassis/suspension, power train, electrical systems.
3) various GM divisions then take basic engineering and turn them into more distinctive vehicles.

It is possible to follow this type of process with global architecture and still get good levels of differentiation,
you see it emerging with Ford and Lincoln, now that Lincoln is starting to take control of its cars earlier in the
development phase, make not only sheet metal and trim changes but look at things like width / wheelbase changes
as well as perhaps changing side profile - more swept back roof line?

In this day and age, a $20,000 V6 RWD compact sedan and coupe should be possible and herald a new era in
bargain basement performance but the greed of motor companies will see such vehicles elevated to the +$30K zone,
Ford has the perfect opportunity to develop an interesting four door coupe off the Mustang but I bet they never do..
 
#25 ·
They could make this into 16 divisions and nothing would change. We know there is a profound lack of competence at almost all levels of Government Motors from design to engineering. It is obvious from what products have been launched that there is a shortage of talent and intelligence. There is no creativity and certainly no engineering competence. The only solution is to fire all of the engineering staff and to hire from competitors.
 
#26 ·
In all honesty, Government Motors tries to be cute - fixated on naming platforms and the game with the sycophants is that everyone tries to know what platform underpins what product. In reality this is 20th century engineering and is just plain stupid. There should be one or two platform systems that can spin off into rear drive or into front drive and that is all. Every vehicle should be underpinned with standardized systems - all of which will reduce the issues of having a myriad of parts - 10 different locks, etc.

The cuteness factor is best displayed by the absolute boneheaded VaporVolt that is so convoluted and deceptive as to be a joke - once again you would never use the parts that Government Motors did to create a vehicle like this - it should be 50% more efficient but that gas powerplant is off the shelf, inefficient, poorly suited for the application it is required to do and that stupid decision to direct drive the system at weird levels adds insult to injury.

Changing the personnel really means nothing since there is no corresponding refinement in reduction of systems that go into products.
 
#40 ·
Wow - obviously not in the industry. Components that can be shared across brands need to be engineered by one guy. Styling and marketing efforts can be split up by brand. GM used to do this (and still do to some extent, but much less) with horrible inefficiencies.
 
#60 ·
The problem with GM has never been Engineering, the problem with GM is the bottom line. As far back as the 1960's they would go through all kinds of hoops to save $1 on a part. They will put out a projection that they will "save" $1 Million to cheapen a part, figure that they will have about 35,000 failures under Warranty, and say that is better than keeping those 35,000 customers happy without a problem. Not figuring how many failures will happen out of warranty making people angry. So now they ticked off 35,000 customers, and they wonder why they struggle.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top