Suppliers: GM better....Ford, Chrysler Not

[jon21]

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...706040376/1148

"GM made strides in improving relations with parts makers, survey finds; Ford, Chrysler slip.
Sharon Terlep / The Detroit News

General Motors Corp. has substantially improved its rocky relationship with parts suppliers for the first time in 15 years, while the rapport has worsened at Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler, according to a study to be released today.
GM's improvement suggests the automaker's aggressive plan to work more harmoniously with its parts makers is gaining traction................."

"Henke called a Ford program to improve supplier relations a "disappointing failure.""................

[IROCNROL1]

One more small step on the road to survival.

[jon21]

GM is getting better and better everyday. While the other two are not trying as much.

[geozinger]

Here's the legacy from Inaki. Having friends and relatives who work for suppliers, (me too, in the past, but not right now) I remember when all of the cost-cutting stuff started. It was a penny-wise pound-foolish attitude, that really hurt Detroit as a whole. Really, hurt isn't the right word. More like crippled. Like so many other industries, your suppliers (or vendors) can really hurt or help your bottom line. Bad relations with your suppliers really doesn't motivate them to help in your struggle.

If you read the article, you can see that while GM has improved, they're still behind just about everyone but Ford. But, I do like their "it's better now, but there's still work to be done" attitude.

It looks promising...

[HoosierRon]

My brother works for a supplier. He always tells me that it is great to work for Toyota and hell to work for Ford. Why? If there is a quality problem, he will be invited to a Toyota meeting. He (Mr. Blue Collar) will listen to all the engineers scratch their heads. He then will stand up, pick up the part and say "Here is your problem... if you want to fix it, do this...." Toyota's response is: "You make it, so you probably know best. Let's make the change." Problem solved.

With Ford, there are all kinds of ridiculous "incentives" that are paid based on arbitrary standards, such as getting a bonus if there are no "costly" design changes. So the engineers don't want to give up their bonuses, so they resist solving the problem, and blame the supplier instead.

[dratnol]

Originally Posted by jon21

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...706040376/1148

"GM made strides in improving relations with parts makers, survey finds; Ford, Chrysler slip.
Sharon Terlep / The Detroit News

General Motors Corp. has substantially improved its rocky relationship with parts suppliers for the first time in 15 years, while the rapport has worsened at Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler, according to a study to be released today.
GM's improvement suggests the automaker's aggressive plan to work more harmoniously with its parts makers is gaining traction................."

"Henke called a Ford program to improve supplier relations a "disappointing failure.""................

Nice to see you are back to stir the pot again jon21. I like how you bolded only Ford but not Chrysler to make your "point".

[lio45]

Read the actual article.

Two main facts:

1) The Japanese Big Three are collectively leaving the Detroit Big Three in the dust when it comes to good suppliers relations.

2) Looking at the Detroit companies, Chrysler is better than GM, with GM barely above Ford (GM: 174 ; Ford: 162).

[Dynamo]

Originally Posted by HoosierRon

My brother works for a supplier. He always tells me that it is great to work for Toyota and hell to work for Ford. Why? If there is a quality problem, he will be invited to a Toyota meeting. He (Mr. Blue Collar) will listen to all the engineers scratch their heads. He then will stand up, pick up the part and say "Here is your problem... if you want to fix it, do this...." Toyota's response is: "You make it, so you probably know best. Let's make the change." Problem solved.

With Ford, there are all kinds of ridiculous "incentives" that are paid based on arbitrary standards, such as getting a bonus if there are no "costly" design changes. So the engineers don't want to give up their bonuses, so they resist solving the problem, and blame the supplier instead.

Generally these studies are not a reflection on the engineering relationship as much as the commercial relationship.

As for design issues, I can tell you GM doesn't have those incentives. As for who attends the meetings it's up to the suppliers to say who represents them. If they want to bring blue collar people into the conversation then I'm all for it, but that's up to them.

Our problem is when there's an issue by the time you have a potential solution you have to have a potential cost figured out and assign blame so you know who's going to pay for it.

[fuhrwb]

The problem with Ford is that they are so desperate they are making irrational decisions and now it's causing bad blood with it's suppliers.

[eaton53]

I've had dealings with both Chrysler and Toyota.

With Chrysler, they always want a reduction. You make a proposal for a design change that achieves the reduction and they shoot it down. What they really want is a reduction without changing anything... they squeeze you, you squeeze the next guy... so on.

Toyota, they haven't been a customer long so we haven't been subject to getting squeezed. But on the design side, as far as knowing what they really want they're just as scatterbrained as anyone. A lot depends on whether you're talking to the Americans or the Japanese, too... they have "differing opinions".

[HoosierRon]

I tought the whole "Toyota Way" was for Toyota to work with suppliers (not blame or squeeze them) to figure out together how a part can be made better and be made more efficiently. Imagine going into a McDonalds and every day saying "sell me that Big Mac for 5 cents less than yesterday". In a month, you would see someone coming out of the bathroom stall with your Big Mac.

[geozinger]

Originally Posted by HoosierRon

I tought the whole "Toyota Way" was for Toyota to work with suppliers (not blame or squeeze them) to figure out together how a part can be made better and be made more efficiently. Imagine going into a McDonalds and every day saying "sell me that Big Mac for 5 cents less than yesterday". In a month, you would see someone coming out of the bathroom stall with your Big Mac.

^^^bolded part^^^

[Cabana Boy]

Originally Posted by jon21

GM is getting better and better everyday. While the other two are not trying as much.

Ummm, I think GM had the farthest to go to improve relations. IOW, they could not have made it much worst.


LOL at "not trying as much."

[PRO_USA1776]

Well Hoosier Ron, I don't have a relative that works for a parts supplier, but what you mentioned is not the Japanese way of business. Being a graduate student at Kettering U I have had numerous classes in the "japanese" way of manufacturing along with guest lecturers and what you described never happens.

[telo]

Originally Posted by Cabana Boy

Ummm, I think GM had the farthest to go to improve relations. IOW, they could not have made it much worst.


LOL at "not trying as much."

Wow, let's try talking in full sentences, UYLTTTWWITIJ (unless you like to talk this way, which I think is juvenile).