Mark Fields out at Ford

[12,000 RPM]

I thought this deserved its own thread... seems shortsighted

OK, the stock isn't performing well, but that's not necessarily tied to his performance as a CEO. Ford has had monster volume under his tenure and made some key fixes (SYNC being the biggest one), along with some successful launches (S550 Mustang, aluminum F150, Lincolns people are actually interested in buying)

From what I hear the guy they want the guy they bring in to focus on "mobility"................................................................................................ that's all good and well, but until that's actually a commercially viable thing they need to sell cars and trucks, which Mark Fields seemed to be pretty damn good at

Usually Paul DeLorenzo is a bitter raving lunatic, but I think he's pretty on point here:

http://www.autoextremist.com/

And it looks like Ford & GM are getting bonged by the "Tesla effect". Somehow Elon has convinced shareholders that coming up with "really cool ideas", regardless of how well you execute them, is a better business model than moving volume profitably. I just dont understand

[FoMoJo]

Good article in http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/columnists/daniel-howes/2017/05/22/ford-names-hackett-ceo/102001432/

"We need to re-energize our business and sharpen our execution," Executive Chairman Bill Ford Jr. said in an interview with The Detroit News. "The good news is we have the financial resources and the talent to get it done. But what we needed is a transformative leader who has done it before. And who not only has the vision, but also knows how to get the organization to move toward that vision.

[GoCougs]

Well, at the end of the day, since the beginning of this tenure, stock price is down ~30%, profitability has lagged and hybrid and EV tech is way behind.

I think Ford is in for tough times. Searching for a "transformative" leader is asking for trouble. Ford got super lucky with Mulally, particularly that that was an operations turnaround, not because of vision or better product, meaning, it was a quick turn and not sustainable.

Mary Barra should be Ford's model - a car person who is both an engineer who gets what it means to have good product. Mulally, Fields, and probably this new guy, were missing that as they were/are operations/business types.

[shp4man]

I haven't researched the operating philosophies of these guys, but just from a dealer employee point of view, lately FoMoCo management has been playing the "pump up the short term numbers and fuck the long term" game.
Probably for big bonus checks- just a guess.
But now, the chickens are coming home to roost, and some of the greedy bastards are covered with chickenshit. Like Mark Fields. 

[MX793]

Mary Barra should be Ford's model - a car person who is both an engineer who gets what it means to have good product. Mulally, Fields, and probably this new guy, were missing that as they were/are operations/business types.

Mulally was a design engineer before moving into management.  Barra's previous positions within GM have included Plant Manager of one of their factories, VP of Global Manufacturing Engineering, and VP of Human Resources.  She's as much a business/Ops type as Mulally.

Fields and Hackett are business/finance people, though.

[12,000 RPM]

Well, at the end of the day, since the beginning of this tenure, stock price is down ~30%, profitability has lagged and hybrid and EV tech is way behind.

Do auto company stock prices mean anything anymore in the Tesla era?

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/22/529550261/ford-replaces-ceo-mark-fields-after-stock-prices-dwindle

GLINTON: Rebecca Lindland is executive analyst at Kelley Blue Book. She says with tech stocks, you can use your imagination. She says Ford and Mark Fields suffer when compared with your ordinary tech stock.

LINDLAND: It's a lot of hope. It's a lot of possibilities. It's, my goodness, what could this become? You know, could Tesla become the next Apple, the next Amazon? And whereas with automotive stocks, you know, 113 years in, you kind of have a good idea of what these stocks can do.

There is value in potential but there is also hella value in revenue and profitability.

[GoCougs]

Mulally was a design engineer before moving into management.  Barra's previous positions within GM have included Plant Manager of one of their factories, VP of Global Manufacturing Engineering, and VP of Human Resources.  She's as much a business/Ops type as Mulally.

Fields and Hackett are business/finance people, though.

Barra's experience is in cars. Mulally isn't a car guy and was in the thick of the 787 outsourcing catastrophe.

[MX793]

Mulally was program manager of the highly successful 777 development.  He left Boeing before the disastrous implementation of the 787 production plan.

[GoCougs]

Mulally was program manager of the highly successful 777 development.  He left Boeing before the disastrous implementation of the 787 production plan.

The lion's share of 777 program management was by Phil Condit. It was indeed successful, and so much so Condit was promoted to CEO. By the time Mulally took the 777 helm from Condit the majority of the 777 work (esp. production planning) was done.

Mulally took over Commercial Airplanes in '98. He was responsible for the 787 program, which began in 2003, and was a driving force behind the outsourcing strategy.

By Mulally's departure in 2006 production implementation was already well under way - MHI started gearing up for wing structures in 2005.

The 787 disaster was more due to production/outsourcing design than implementation, particularly lack of supplier oversight and having suppliers design parts and assemble sub structures. It was never going to go well.

[MX793]

The lion's share of 777 program management was by Phil Condit. It was indeed successful, and so much so Condit was promoted to CEO. By the time Mulally took the 777 helm from Condit the majority of the 777 work (esp. production planning) was done.

Mulally took over Commercial Airplanes in '98. He was responsible for the 787 program, which began in 2003, and was a driving force behind the outsourcing strategy.

By Mulally's departure in 2006 production implementation was already well under way - MHI started gearing up for wing structures in 2005.

The 787 disaster was more due to production/outsourcing design than implementation, particularly lack of supplier oversight and having suppliers design parts and assemble sub structures. It was never going to go well.

Lack of oversight is an implementation problem.

[GoCougs]

Lack of oversight is an implementation problem.

"Lack of oversight" was the intent (i.e., plan) as it was at the heart of theoretical cost savings (and of course the disaster that followed): the more suppliers do the less Boeing has to do. This plan was Mulally's doing (and to be fair, others too, such as Condit's and the cabal inherited from the Mc-D merger, particularly Stonecipher).