Does Ford Have Too Many Engineers?

Correct, the best and the brightest engineers these days aren't being recruited by Ford. And they sure don't want to live in Dearborn.
Guess where many of them want to work and who they want to work for ?

I mean if it was a remote job I'd totes work for Ford if the pay and benefits were competitive and the work environment was acceptable.
 
Correct, the best and the brightest engineers these days aren't being recruited by Ford. And they sure don't want to live in Dearborn.
Guess where many of them want to work and who they want to work for ?
I guess the question is, did 20 years ago Ford have trouble attracting and keeping top engineers? Its the guys with lots of experience and character that Ford has lost somewhere or never had? that's leading to its current slump. Recent grads are important but its the guys that have seen some stuff happen through the complete cycle and saw what worked and what didn't. The text book doesn't cover everything, and a manufacturer needs some guys that can write the next one.
 
Just in case no one has read this:

Excellent article that once again proves it doesn't matter how many engineers you have, or how good they are if you put slack-jawed shoe clerks in positions of power over them.

The CEO has an undergraduate BA degree and a MBA. I'm not sure if he is qualified to comment on the engineers working for him.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly, a few years back Ford opened an engineering office in Palo Alto to share in the local talent pool. This group is not manufacturing engineering; rather it is charged with creating a new connection between automotive and computer technologies.

You probably know, Tesla's engineering is based in Palo Alto and continues to expand. Even though Musk moved HQ to Austin (tax advantage and cheap, well educated work force) he calls Palo Alto Tesla's Engineering HQ. I believe 40% of their workforce is still in CA, even with all the global expansion.
 
Cast iron slant 6 cylinder with HD30 here we come
IMG_1616.jpeg
 
my Daddy was a toolmaker. worked in the Chevy #1 V8 plant in Flint.
Came home with this flat topped rolling toolbox that the new plant manager disliked
because the new plant manager didn't like the fact the tool makers would sit on the toolboxes . .

of course the hew plant manager didn't know the reason the guys were able to sit around or take a nap
was because every production machine in a 40 year old factory was operating.. nothing was broken down..

of course everybody has heard be careful what you ask for you might get it..

about a month later my dad came home with the new hip roofed rolling toolbox
and was told to bring the old flat topped toolbox back to the shop
because everything was broken and not getting repaired in a timely fashion
and the new plant manager was on his way to understanding the importance of flat topped toolboxes.
 
When the pencil pushers are at war with the engineers and quality managers, this is the type of work environment you get.
Sometimes the pencil pushers ARE engineers as well. Funny but if Farley wants higher efficiency he needs to start from the top down. It's the system Ford has created and it doesn't come from the bottom of the engineering ranks.
 
I guess the question is, did 20 years ago Ford have trouble attracting and keeping top engineers? Its the guys with lots of experience and character that Ford has lost somewhere or never had? that's leading to its current slump. Recent grads are important but its the guys that have seen some stuff happen through the complete cycle and saw what worked and what didn't. The text book doesn't cover everything, and a manufacturer needs some guys that can write the next one.

that is the truth. my Brother is an engineer at BW, my BIL is a retired engineer from GM.. both of them can tell a person a thing or two about corporate structures, corporate management, bean counters, what has been tried and did not work or what was tried and did work but there was a reason they stopped doing it or the if somebody comes out with a new idea at the job, why it may not work out like they thought because they tried the same thing 20 years ... its the same in every job.. somebody who might have been there a long time knows why they do or don't do something a certain way... or why you need extra people.. sometimes the brainpower hits a wall, that can only be torn down by another set of eyes..
 
I have said for many years that science education in this country (and I'm sure it spills over into engineering as well) suffers from the fact that college level educators rarely have spent any time in industry. High school, college, grad school, post doc....then on to a teaching position. We would certainly benefit by having a requirement that STEM educators spend several years in a real world environment before being allowed to teach at the university level!
 
I have said for many years that science education in this country (and I'm sure it spills over into engineering as well) suffers from the fact that college level educators rarely have spent any time in industry. High school, college, grad school, post doc....then on to a teaching position. We would certainly benefit by having a requirement that STEM educators spend several years in a real world environment before being allowed to teach at the university level!

then they would never go to teaching.. because its hard to take a pay cut like that.
 
Automotive engineering is a far cry from aerospace grade engineering. I generally wonder what they were thinking when I work on my vehicles.
 
Engineers that design 3/4 and 1 ton trucks that have to have the cab removed to service the engine, need to loose their job. Engineers that put a water pump inside the motor also need to loose their job. I have 2 Ford vehicles but I won't buy a newer one. Then they make a tail light that is over engineered and has a ridiculous price, who needs that?
 
Back
Top