LyrArc Article Gist
Wagoner became President at age 45, CEO at age 48. So you would think that young blood is coming in to GM, but that does not appear to be the case. At the Board level most of the Board members like George Fisher formerly of Motorola, have been around for a long time, and there does not appear to be new blood that would bring in fresh thinking. And serious decisions about investment in developing new technologies to develop fuel efficient cars, like hybrid technologies, electric and other alternative technologies, diesel technology, have been held up for years at General Motors. The way decisions are made on such issues with Board members voicing their opinions more than wrestling seriously with the issues, shows serious shortcomings of management and the Board. At key points of decision making the CEO and key members of his team had not prepared carefully, and Board members did not come up with serious thinking on the problems facing GM. It, appears that the investment in technologies to develop fuel efficient cars much earlier, long before they were finally being addressed in 2006, was a failure of Wagoner's management and of the Board. Management discussed this but continued to be mired in old ways of thinking that continuing with the status quo- cars with existing low fuel efficiency- would not expose GM to illwinds as preferences changed. Its clear from the description here of discussions within GM that the old thinking is quite entrenched at GM, and Wagoner just was not the kind of person who could vigorously articulate a new vision for GM. A couple of things are noteworthy in this account of management indecision at GM. When fuel prices began hurting sales of SUV's and large vehicles in 2005, efforts to get a decision on investments in new technologies for fuel efficiency for the whole product lineup failed at the Board level in an April 2005 meeting. One Board member saying at that meeting, that" do we want to lose another billion dollars in developing new technology for fuel efficient cars." And no one calling him to account that the remark still did not address the point that GM had to respond to the changing market and world oil dynamics, and not just hope for the best, as GM had aggressive competitors, and faced continually diminishing role in the market place for the entire decade of the 1990's. While April 2005 was already at the tail end of the previous era of gas guzzling cars and a decision then would still not have shown a forward looking vision of things, it was not until 10 months later that a decision was reached. And this almost from necessity, as oil prices jumped in 2006 after hurricane Katrina, and by this time President Bush was also calling for higher mandated fuel efficiency standards. The other noteworthy point here is that by making the changes so late in the game, GM had to compress the development cycle for new and some cases unknown technologies into short time frames. If the ingenuity of its engineers comes to its rescue it still faces another hurdle that of cost, because the technologies have to be perfected and improved, so that the costs are low enough for customers, and importantly comparable with what it is costing competitors to make the same fuel efficient technology engine or other part. Which is why one Honda executive remarked, "GM like everyone else is serious about this, because they have to be, but how many of their hybrids and how many Volts will they sell? Their technology is very expensive." Even if GM develops the Volt electric car by 2010, GM will need a whole range of fuel efficient technolgies to power its large product lineup. Its just to hard to avoid the conclusion that this is going to prove costly. All the dragging of feet and indecision, and failure to prepare GM for a different world in case something drastically different from what was expected happened, will prove very costly especially considering how aggressive and well financed some of the Japanese and German competitors are. It also hard to avoid the conclusion that there is too much bureaucracy at the large auto companies, and getting new blood and new ideas and fresh thinking is tough in a place where everybody agrees with everybody else, and there is uniformity of thinking. This makes it difficult for any original or wayward types to thrive. These bureaucracies look up to the top for direction. Initiative is discouraged on one hand, and at the same time even if a new direction is taken at the top. a lot of resistance can be expected to implementing it throughout the company without persistent persuasion and reminder of new facts and realities. This is true for both Wagoner and Mullaly as they face the skepticism of subordinates to new direction. Mullaly for instance has to remind his managers that large vehicles are only a small percentage of the entire global market, and if Toyota is making money in small cars so can Ford. See the link to this. Is Toyota immune from bureaucracy type behaviour throughout the company? Not really, Toyota's chairman emeritus came out of retirement in fact and went out of the way to caution its CEO and management about their complacency a year or so before. Shoichiro Toyoda personally intervened to caution against too much expansion in the US and climbing wage costs, and other risks they perceived such as the company managers in the USA appearing to be resting on their laurels. See the link to this. A lot of discussion is probably going on within these companies about the present state of affairs, and considerable anxiety for what the future will bring. It may be useful to ask the question is there something that makes it difficult for once successful organizations -now with entrenched bureaucracy and set ways -to put forward leaders with vision and foresight, till it becomes very late? The vision and foresight about where their markets and the world is heading, and the ability to move their organizations in that direction. Or to break out of old patterns of behaviour and thinking....

LyrArc Article Gist
Interview with Dieter Zetsche, Daimler's CEO on what Mercedes is doing. Daimler is introducing the Smart car in the US in a big way. Its just 8 feet long and gets 40 miles per gallon. Demand for it from dealers was so strong that instead of 40 dealers as planned Mercedes has setup 67 dealers in 31 states in the USA. About 3500 were sold in the first 3 months, Feb to April 2008. Its Bluetec program is another way its boosting fuel efficiency. The Bluetec program is for making diesel engines as clean as gasoline engines and gasoline engines as efficient as diesel engines. Its the second generation of direct injection systems and both engines will work with self ignition. And Daimler is on the path of combining these engines with hybrids. And also develping fuel cell and all electric battery driven vehicles emission free. As Zetsche says Daimler is moving along this path very fast. In lithium ion battery in cars Daimler is taking the lead. He says the American and Japanese makers are pushing hard but Mercedes is ahead by taking the car to market that has a lithium ion battery. How does Daimler do it? It has about 24 patents. The main reason no carmaker has made it to market with lithium ion battery for cars is the cooling problem that has been seen in laptops also. Mercedes solution to this has been to integrate the cooling of the battery into the cooling system of the car with a sophisticated system, hence the many patents. Next year Dailmer will introduce the S-Class with a six cylinder gasoline engine, the S400 Hybrid with a lithium ion battery, and it will be the first in market. Dieter Zetsche is so confident that he says it will have perfect performance and absolute safety. With targets for fuel efficiency in Europe more aggressive than in the USA, and the German public pushing for higher fuel efficiency aggressive emissions targets and intolerant of excuses from German carmakers, makers like Daimler are moving very fast in this direction. Adding to pressures from the German public, they see oil prices at current levels for the foreseeable future, this adds to the urgency. Americans and Japanese makers stand the risk of falling behind. See the links to the pressure from German public opinion and the German carmakers response to this. And clearly Zetsche reflects that confidence in this interview. Daimler's Mercedes division is selling a lot of cars in China, Russia, and the Middle East. As he put it there are 400,000 millionaires in China and Mercedes are sellig very well in these markets just as the US market shrinks. And these are cars in the dollar 40,000 plus or $100,000 plus range in which Mercedes has he lead. This market will also shrink as the global economy slowsdown but the profits from this market will probably be plowed into the Bluetec and other advanced fuel efficiency programs that will give Daimler a market advantage in the longer run....

LyrArc Article Gist
Oversupply and price wars in China's solar power industry in 2012.

LyrArc Article Gist
Car size shrinks as the Focus, Spark, Aveo, Cruze small cars attract attention at the 2010 International Auto Show in Detroit. The big change is that these small cars are following the European small car in being refined and sophisticated, with a lot of features. This isn't the Chevette that Americans knew in the sixties and seventies, and the perception of what is the right size and comfort is changing completely as a new generation of buyers brought up in a world of pc's, i-phones, and globalized cultures is in the driver seat.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Obama administration is pushing for new U.S. fuel efficiency standards of 56.2 mpg by 2025. In May 2009 President Obama announced domestic car and light truck fuel efficiency standards of 35 mpg by 2016. Europe is expected to reach fuel efficiency of 60 mpg by 2020. This would still leave Europe considerably ahead of the U.S. in fuel efficiency for automobiles, but the gap would be much smaller. For the last several decades the U.S. has fallen sadly behind Europe and Japan in fuel efficiency. The perception of poor fuel efficiency hurt the automakers badly during periods of high fuel prices and when buyers were facing difficult economic choices. The automakers are beginning to grasp this fact. Mark Reuss, president of General Motors, commented that- "it's very challenging, but its upto us engineers to provide high value to the customer and support the environment." This is an issue that has serious national and global implications as it affects the future prices and demand for oil, emissions, and future economic growth. It would also bring the U.S. in line with Europe and Japan when it comes to fuel efficiency of automobiles. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A major change is taking place. Automakers around the world are shifting to smaller engines. Hyundai's Sonata for 2011 and the Tucson crossover for 2010 are going to have only 4 cylinder engines. Many V-6's offered by Detroit carmakers are being replaced with 4 cylinder engines and V-8 with V-6 engines. Ford is using the EcoBoost a turbocharged V-6 to offer new options for its Taurus, Lincoln MKT and other cars.

LyrArc Article Gist
A shakeout for manufacturers in the solar industry is developing in 2011-2012, as prices of solar components drop sharply. There is slowing growth for solar products in 2012. Seven solar power manufacturers have filed for bankruptcy or insolvency in 2011, including two German companies Solar Millenium and Solon SE, and Solyndra LLC of the U.S. Debt exceeds market capitalization for the 10 largest publicly traded solar companies. A major reason is the subsidies offered by governments in Europe, the U.S. and China, which resulted in a glut in manufacturing capacity and falling prices. Chinese banks encouraged by the Chinese government have given $43 billion in credit facilities to Chinese renewable energy companies, according to Bloomberg Energy Finance. Prices of solar panels at $1.60 per megawatt in 2010, dropped to 90 cents per megawatt in 2011. Another problem is slowing demand. In Europe banks are reducing funding. Installations doubled for solar energy in Germany in 2010, and dropped 29% in 2011, according to Jefferies. Germany is the largest market for solar energy in the world....

LyrArc Article Gist
Samuelson points to the risks to the American economic growth from excessive health care costs. This is hurting take home pay and shows up in consumer spending. It is hurting government spending in other areas such as needed infrastructure spending and efforts to reduce the deficit. This hurts private capital investment to create jobs because of lower demand from constricted consumer spending. The U.S. budget has as its largest single expense 27% on health care compared to 20% on defense the next largest expense, with growth in health care spending taking this to one third of the budget in coming years. Without addressing health care, says Samuelson, the Supercommitte in Congress even if successful at deficit reduction will basically have failed to do its job, and it did not have the time, resources or conviction to do this. According to a new study from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), U.S. healthcare spending per person is $7,960 per person in 2009. This compares with Norway $5,352, Britain $3,487, France $3, 978, an OECD average of $3,233. Life expectancy in the U.S. is 78.2 years, compared to Japan 83 years, OECD average of 79.5 years. Chile and the Czech Republic have life expectancy equal to the U.S. Except for cancer care where the five year survival rate is 89.3% in the U.S. and the OECD average is 83.5%, the U.S. lags far behind in much needed critical areas such as diabetes and asthma. Rates of emergency hospitalization for asthma are 3 times that in France and 6 times that in Germany and Italy. The U.S. has fewer doctors per thousand population and higher cost per medical procedure- with more frequent use of the costliest procedures- creating a supply shortage that induces higher prices, and less preventive and early action care through physician visits. The number of practicing U.S. doctors is 2.4 per thousand population in the U.S. compared to 3.1 per thousand for the OECD average; and number of annual doctor consultations 3.9 per capita in the U.S. versus 6.5 for the OECD average. Appendectomy cost $7,962 in the U.S., $5,004 in Canada and $2,943 in Germany. Coronary angioplasty cost $14,378 in the U.S., compared to $9,296 in Sweden, and $7,027 in France. Knee replacement cost $14,946 in the U.S., $12,424 in France, and $9,910 in Canada. Knee replacements, angioplasties and MRI exams are twice as common in the U.S. compared to the OECD countries. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The critical exchange between oil companies and auto companies about who is at fault for the energy crisis. In one ad that ran last year, Chevron argued that "if automakers improved fuel economy across the board by just 5 mpg, we'd save over 22 billion gallons of gasoline a year." The criticism is also sparked by the high price of oil which is hurting sales of pickups and large SUV's that the automakers depend on for profits. One ad by Exxon Mobil shows a cartoon of a large SUV filling up at a gas station and hints that the problem rests with the automakers who have failed to build the kind of highly fuel efficient vehicles that are needed. The ad says that the average fuel economy of new U.S. autos has not gone up much in two decades, the small gains have been offset by the increases in the size and weight of vehicles.

LyrArc Article Gist
American manufacturers are importing more of the parts that go into each product. According to Susan Houseman, a senior economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute in Kalamazoo, Michigan, the imported portion for these parts is up to 25% from 17%. Even the Bureau of Economic Analysis figure of the share of GDP coming from manufacturing is overstated, says Houseman. That figure was 11.2% for 2009, but is closer to 10.5% if all the imported components are included instead of being counted as domestically made. This is down from 14.2% ten years ago, and about 30% in the 1950's. There is deep concern that the manufacturing decline has weakened America. Houseman says that one cannot separate manufacturing from innovation, and she asks if America can continue to be strong in R&D with a shrunken manufacturing base. James Jordan of the Interstate Maglev project, says Maglev- which uses special magnets to levitate and propel high-speed trains- was invented in the United States. Today equipment for that technology is manufactured and used in Japan, and innovation in high speed trains is taking place in Japan and Germany. The decline in manufacturing is shockingly large. From 1979 employment in manufacturing went down by 8.1 million to 11.6 million, with the largest drop occurring in the last ten years. With it America is losing something significant- all the knowhow and skills that go into making things. Today the airplane wings for several Boeing airliners are made in Japan and shipped here. In a not too distant past these wings would have been built here, and workers with the knowhow and skills for these critical components were part of Boeing's workforce....