Thread regarding Ford layoffs

@js Exactly at Ford it is nearly always leadership that is the root cause of issues. The leadership likes to use the gullible new hires as promoters and implementers of their plans and then later as the scapegoats for the inevitable failure.

@jk regrettably I have participated in similar meetings. One that still haunts me went like this:
— QA team to newbie: the feature you launched to QA causes hard failures
— Newbie: it works perfectly in my DEV environment, it must be QA fault
— Manager: I agree with Newbie I’ve seen it working in the DEV environment, launch it directly to Production this weekend. The manager immediately left the meeting.
— Everyone else in the room: WTF?
As you can imagine it was a bucket of not good on the weekend. We made operations team repeatedly page the manager and the director for “guidance and decisions.” LOL Young newbie learned the importance of testing code with exact same software levels that were running in production. The poor kid was shaking and crying once his bluster and arrogance failed. And yes the manager threw the newbie under the bus.

@jk

Now your post is hilarious entertainment. Need more stories and posts like this around here. Pure funny.

@js Last line is always good advice.....

@jk a while back someone "not from engineering" was saying in this chat regarding warranty/recall it's the engineers not managers and I made the point that all but the most simple engineering direction is approved, revised, or vetoed by management .... your story is a good illustration that leadership has more to do with the quality/warranty than the GSR working stiff engineers... your story agrees with my experience that most senior engineers know to sit back and watch the good time be had by all when the bad decisions are made

What a crock, Kumar the spin doctor.
If you have a silly little software app like a game they by all means launch it and fix bugs — but you don’t do that with software that does things like run a vehicle or a nuclear power plant.
I can give you two examples of occurrences at Ford.

• there was a meeting about Ford automatically delivering software updates to vehicles. The senior team members were opposed as it could lead to dangerous driving situations. The younger team members and management saw no problems with automatically delivering software updates to moving vehicles. It is Ford so management won, resulting in the nav systems etc rebooting while people were driving. A good time was had by all
• there was a meeting about how the backend software for phone apps like unlock my car needed to be up and available 24x7x365. The tech specialist (in name only) and management decided that this level of availability was not needed and placed it on cheaper server stack ( to save blue dollars). Then that cheaper server stack was offline for scheduled maintenance for a weekend. A ton of angry customers were locked out of their cars as then had stopped carrying physical keys when out for a run/hike. Of course the manager tried to blame infrastructure teams for the situation. And the Ford spin doctors made up a story for the press to print.

Like I stated before, "if you can't fix it, feature it".

@fy This is partially true. Some companies intentionally create occasional failures to resolve them. When done correctly, this can build trust. This is a well-studied business case. For instance, Amazon at its inception needed people to trust them. So, if a customer had a few good experiences, they would be given the wrong product or something similar. Of course, Amazon would quickly rectify the situation by providing a refund and a replacement. That said, this is not what Ford is attempting by any means.

@OP. It is the same sh!t that I heard from an owner of another company. He claimed that making a software suite well from the beginning was not good. When the company delivers a flawed product, the company develops a bond with the client, since both have to work together to fix it.

Of course it was all BS. Well, he was a cheap ba----d, hiring the cheapest programmers in another country, that of course, delivered cheap and flawed code, and he wanted to justify it. He lost his company, when he was forced to sale it before brankruptcy.

The new owner had the opposite point of view. The new owner paid better, and demanded quality. The company soared, made millions, expanded his clients, and was bought by a bigger company (publicly traded) in 2019.

So I know perfectly, that this is Ford BS...

Christopher Walken can explain the need for more cowbell.

If we want to learn and get better we need more recalls... And more cowbell!

There you have it, folks! We have our marching orders. Let’s aim for 200 this year!

I gotta believe the vast majority of the recalls are FMVSS or legally requirements and not "doing the right thing" or "taking care of the customer".... better to not have the recall and design and test and launch clean.

It has been said in this forum many times that campaigns are tremendous learning opportunities and do provide us benefits. What KG said in that article is on point. Ridiculous people here trying to mock it.

So is doing a fatal dose. Just think of how much $ you will save on groceries! "It's a good thing".This type of logic should get me hired. Where do I apply?

Only our management could come out and make such an ludicrous statement.

lu·​di·​crous ˈlü-də-krəs
Synonyms of ludicrous
1
: amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity
2
: meriting derisive laughter or scorn as absurdly inept, false, or foolish