What is Ford doing for its customers

[Old Hickory Trojan]

This may be the most clueless post I've ever read on here. Please do some reading to educate yourself on automobile design and manufacturing before embarrassing yourself with further posts like this

Does the truth hurt your bonehead response. Rather than dealing with the facts about Ford's approach and inability to control the situation unrelated to supply chain issues but plainly communication issues and inconsistent policy making along with promising one thing and changing that direction several times, and doing band aid fixes that haven't solved the issues that Ford clearly has, you prefer to badmouth a post that has historically been accurate. Take off the dunce cap, and check out historical evidence by simple research. I was a Supply Chain and Planning Manager for over 35 years in the semiconductor arena and have never seen such a cluster****. Pay attention, Ford got rid of high level Quality employee's in their attempt at correcting even rudimentary quality issues which was an onging issue on the Maverick and Ford in general.. The new guy implemented workers being able to stop production if they noticed problems in manufacturing which wasn't done before. He implemented cameras on the Maverick production line to verify that assembly was done correctly. These corrections are nothing new to manufacturing in any industry including automotive. Any credibility Ford had with it's customers is losing ground when it takes a year to discover quality issues in a Manufacturing plant as simple as using workers to actually find quality issues and having cameras in critical areas to check assembly work.

Sponsored

 

[Old Hickory Trojan]

Most manufacturers now work on just-in-time inventory, so they would expect to be able to refresh inventory as orders are built. Any disruption to the flow of parts can stop the assembly line pretty quickly if they can't dynamically reallocate orders. That said, I would expect that shortages should be able to trigger adjustments and flag orders for reconfiguration by the customer so they can be slotted back into the production plan.

Based on videos I've seen here, the development process on the Maverick was pretty compressed. They may have still been tweaking the order book well past when it should have been done and dusted. Not defending them, though after a career in Corporate America it doesn't surprise me all that much.

More like why they would introduce ROVP and dealers not knowing how to handle a new process with a new vehicle (total confusion by dealers and buyers) and a year later discarding that process and returning to COVP which the dealers were familiar with...that was stupid. What did it buy them? Why this time not use order date as part of the priority (I know because the orders were to close together ) but then recommend what they set the priority at to the dealers for rollovers and new orders but allow the dealers to ignore it...that was stupid and didn't follow what rollover folks were told. Don't even mention all those VIN's that got cancelled and made priority 99 and after a month some still not scheduled as they are building new orders...stupid...and some folks have an issue with folks complaining about it

 

[OrangeBlue]

You seem confused.

First- You state that the Maverick is a Loss Leader. That means they lose money on each one.

Then- You whine that Ford won't build more Mavericks because THEY DON'T CARE.

Next- You you claim "THEY'D RATHER SHIP THEM TO BRAZIL."

Let me explain- If Maverick is a loss leader, then Ford (in pursuit of profits) will calculate how many they should lose money on to achieve their greater goals. This is called CAPITALISM.

AGAIN- If the average profit on a Maverick is -$1000 and the profit on an F150 is +$5000, which one should you build more of?

AND WTF does shipping them to Brazil have to do with anything? Is this some weird America First crap?

In closing- it's ok to spell out the word DICK.

Ford does not care how many of us want Mavericks.

It's just a loss leader/showroom traffic builder for them. They can build 600K F series trucks but can't build 100K Mavericks? Added another shift to build Lightnings? Increase Maverick Hybrid production? They won't do it because they don't care.

IT CAN BE DONE, BUT THEY DON'T CARE.

THEY'D RATHER SHIP THEM TO BRAZIL.

FORD SUCKS BIG DONKEY D!C# WHEN IT COMES TO THE MAVERICK.

Rant off.....

 

[ford5]

As I and many others have said, my issue with Ford is taking more hybrid orders than they could build. They should have shut off orders and informed customers that if the want a 23 Maverick they would have to order a 2.0. This is the common sense professional approach to sales.

 

[jmcgon237]

I don't want to get into the weeds on supply chain too much and the difference between push and pull manufacturing, but I am willing to give Ford a mulligan on the 22 models as being a surprise of demand but 22 should have also been a wakeup call and a realization that we need to take our thumb out their butt hole. Make greater and longer planning commitments in purchases to the vendors for 23 so they can ramp up production. Ford makes the 2.5 used in hybrids, did they ramp up production? It appears they didn't plan for more units because they knew how many hybrids they could make before they even started taking orders and seeing what customers wanted. I use engines as example, but it could have been the eCVTs or something else if Ford was not willing to plan and commit to spending money. Vendors are measured on their ability to ramp up to increased need, if they cannot they get dumped.

 

[CACTI_HYBRID]

In the current environment with production limitations the build-to-order sales model is a total failure. Rather than have people waiting years for a truck that might never come, Ford would have been better off to simply build what they could and then ship those to dealer lots. Yes, there would still not enough to meet demand, but at least people wouldn't be left waiting and wondering. Over-promising and under-delivering is what really is pissing people off. I'd rather just know I was not going to get a truck then to think I might but never have that happen.

 

[Old Hickory Trojan]

I spent 17 years in corporate IT, eventually becoming the Director of storage and backup/recovery systems worldwide in a Fortune 200 technology company. As a result, I worked closely with applications development teams and was the technical lead or project lead on 3 different enterprise projects.

One of the more frustrating parts of that was the tendency of businesspeople to buy best in class software, then demand that it be modified to match existing processes and workflows, thereby sacrificing much of the value of the software. When a very high-profile ERP project failed, the CEO decreed that the business would adapt to the software, not the other way around. He also made every line of business executive bet their badges on the project to eliminate things like pocket vetos and resistance to change.

BTW, prior to the rollout of the successful ERP project, we had teams going out and training users on the new system to make sure we transitioned cleanly and didn't sink the quarter.

Not long after that project ended, I left IT and spent the next 8 years teaching college-hire salespeople how to talk technology with IT managers and do it in business value terms. That beat the heck out of beating my head against the IT wall.

I have a different issue. As a supply chain and planning manager my experience was slightly different. After I retired the Director of IT brought me back to my previous company to assist in the selection of a Semiconductor business system. After I rejected SAP as a solution that didn't fit semiconductor manufacturing without having to modify multiple areas in that system and still requiring a semiconductor planning system which nothing they had worked in a wafer fab that ran multiple processes and didn't hard peg orders to wafer starts in order to meet customer demand in high tech fabrication...we had to purchase another system and attach a Wafer planning system and forecast system that aligned with the business rather then the other way around. I prefer sales not get involved with telling IT how to develop a business system since in my experience Sales people would agree with anything the customer wanted manufacturing to do rather then understanding the constraints manufacturing had in their processes. I preferred that they understand how to forecast the business needs and inquire with Planning and Manufacturing and Finance before they commit to anything to a customer. My experience is sales was more concerned with commissions then on time delivery to a customer since they never spoke to anyone before entering a sales order. Ever see a forecast where 1/4 of the deliverables forecasted and 1/2 the revenue where the part number was "miscellaneous". Try to explain to them that no one can plan for that when you have an 8 to 12 week cycle time and they commit "miscellaneous to two weeks delivery. The fact that we had a Business Systems Analyst that was an expert in the Manufacturing process, the IT systems and it's constraints, Finance and the bottom line and the cost impact from various decisions from the various disciplines who was ignored by the Sales team made things even worse.

 

[MinntoMich]

There's no money tree for endless expansion and costs as you suggest here. Read the financial reports and you will understand Ford is bleeding $ in many areas already and survival of the company in down market prohibits carelessly throwing $ at problems regardless of the negative consequences.

Don't think I said that but maybe it could be implied. The jist was more like building something that fits into an a unrecognized or ignored market segment and then leading that market segment as was illustrated by the example of Chrysler in the 1980' and 90's or Ford in the early to mid-80's with the Escort, Tempo, Thunderbird and so on. The Maverick has the potential to do just that. Maybe it's a strategy to limit production and maybe it's incompetence or both I'll let you be the judge.

I know someone who was worked at FoMoCo in physical plant security. When Ford pulled a rabbit out of its hat in 1983 and profit checks were issued to hourly and salaried staff the aforementioned was able to observe that some salaried staff had bonus checks in amounts that were greater than their annual salary. Yeah, there is money somewhere. I'm betting it's from building something that the public wants rather than what a panel suggests. JMHO.

Money and budgets are murky areas to laymen but I think sometimes corporate types, like politicians, tell you they can't for whatever reason but their own limited ability to forecast. Build what people actually want or need, build it, make sure you can build it numbers close to demand and the customers will come.

Just don't keep us waiting as the competition for sales is always there.

 

[CTYankee]

I have a different issue. As a supply chain and planning manager my experience was slightly different. After I retired the Director of IT brought me back to my previous company to assist in the selection of a Semiconductor business system.

You had a very different set of challenges from us. We were an assembly manufacturing operation, much like Ford but on a massively smaller scale. Still a multi-billion-dollar company, though, with a much higher priced product. We sold very little that started under 6 figures per unit. This project tied Manufacturing, Order Entry, Logistics, Sales, and Customer Service together to allow a 360 degree view of the customer. But that could only happen if everyone learned to use the same set of information based on a common data dictionary.

The trigger event for that project was when the CEO was making a visit to a large international account and realized he couldn't get a single report that showed him the customer purchase history, support experience, and forecasted purchases. The reports he could get came from different systems that used the same terms to mean different things and took days to produce for customers at that scale.

I know Ford used our products in their IT infrastructure, but I had no insight into the applications that rode on top of it.

 

[Tiger Dude]

Maverick sales are twice Santa Fe numbers.

It's easy to be an expert when you don't have to raise the capital for new assembly plants while convincing suppliers to do the same.

What are they doing for customers? Building vehicles below price points that they could. Vehicles that people want. I guess they'd be a better company if no one wanted their products.

 

[Starwatcher]

Ford is finally pissing me off. I am not upset by the things that Ford has little control of like chips and supplier delays, but I am concerned that they are doing little to meet what their customers want. For close to 2 years now they cannot build enough cars due to their manufacturing limitations. Only one plant shared with several different models. Could they not change over production in a second plant? Then Ford takes orders for 23 models and books more orders than they want to make. There are way more orders for hybris and XL so instead of trying to meet that demand, the customer can compromise from what they want, and Ford will now be happy to allow changes to engines and models. OK, so the order gets changed to a model and engine that Ford wants, and they look at the order in 8 months and do not build it because the customer had the nerve to order mud flaps, but Ford does not have mud flaps so instead of contacting the very patient customer the order can just get transferred to next year model.
Ford did a very good job identifying a new market and had great potential in dominating with small pick-ups but all they did was to tell Toyota, Ram, Hyundai, Chevy and all the rest to come on in we are showing the way to make money because we do not have the management commitment to build trucks and make happy customers. Could you imagine how many Mavericks would be on the road today if Ford would just have bult them, but I am seeing a lot of Sants Cruz in the area.

They very quickly expanded production capacity when the Mustang demand exploded. They could do it again, but for whatever reason, don’t want to.

 

[CTYankee]

They very quickly expanded production capacity when the Mustang demand exploded. They could do it again, but for whatever reason, don’t want to.

I believe that modern assembly lines are too automated around specific model commonalities. I don't think a Maverick can go down the same line as a Ranger or an Escape, for example. The first-gen Mustang could share a line with the 1964 Galaxie/Fairlane (Metuchen did this) because most assembly was still done manually.

 

[Impetus19]

I believe that modern assembly lines are too automated around specific model commonalities. I don't think a Maverick can go down the same line as a Ranger or an Escape, for example. The first-gen Mustang could share a line with the 1964 Galaxie/Fairlane (Metuchen did this) because most assembly was still done manually.

Ranger, no. Escape, yes.

 

[Starwatcher]

I believe that modern assembly lines are too automated around specific model commonalities. I don't think a Maverick can go down the same line as a Ranger or an Escape, for example. The first-gen Mustang could share a line with the 1964 Galaxie/Fairlane (Metuchen did this) because most assembly was still done manually.

There are empty plants around the country that can be reopened. Cheap…no. But goes with the business

Sponsored