When General Motors revamped its global design operations last month, the move was generally seen as a way to streamline the organization in order to increase the automaker’s net profit. Just recently, however, GM Authority received a letter from a source familiar with The General’s design activities who wished to provide an insider’s perspective to the overhaul. In an exchange with GM Authority, the source — who wished to remain anonymous — wrote:
“… becausewhen you’re working on a [vehicle] project day in and day out you are constantly pushed to find ways to improve the design and meet the program’s objectives while at the same time experimenting with all kinds of different elements. Over time things can start to get a little blurry. Some team members lose focus and direction and one of the things the restructuring will accomplish is minimize fatigue and project based burnout.”
In effect, as General Motors abandoned brand autonomy in the 80s under the questionable direction of CEO Roger Smith, the automaker moved to a centralized design and engineering structure — where key personnel responsible for creating vehicles moved from project (vehicle) to project. And until last month’s restructuring, this was the way vehicles were delivered to market within the New GM (with a few exceptions). Our source’s comments illustrate the possible loss of focus and time-based employee burnout that can occur as team members move from one project to the next: one quarter a designer may be working on a $35,000 Buick and the next, he could be supervising the direction of a sub-$20,000 Chevy. Things could get problematic as the lines begin to blur…
While the centralized structure could potentially be more cost-effective than that of brand autonomy, the overall design direction of a brand could suffer — especially in light of competitors that are separating design operations by brand (VW and Audi, Toyota and Lexus). Instead, by letting a team live with their brand day in and day out, the design language and overall direction for the brand can improve — leading to increased brand recognition.
In doing so, a brand-focused design team could even re-use common design elements across the brand’s vehicle lines and perhaps even begin re-using certain parts and materials to engender increased commonality among a brand’s vehicles — leading to a more prominent and more recognizable design language with the possibility of increased cost effectiveness.
Ultimately, last month’s design shuffle is a seemingly small change that should lead to even better, more competitive GM products — ones with which consumers can form an even stronger emotional attachment. This is as close to a brand-autonomous New GM that we will get to for a while… if ever.
Photo credit: AutoGuide
Comments
Alex, great article… Telling a story consistently with a brand/design language is crucial, and GM has tended to be all over the map until recently, Yaaa…
This is good news. This also was a good article too. I did want address the statement in the article about GM and centralization. It was in the 1980’s and not the 1990’s when the brands were stripped of autonomy. I remember it was the1983-1984 time frame to be exact when GM under Roger smith created the BOC and CPC groups. BOC was Buick Oldsmobile Cadillac and CPC was Chevrolet Pontiac Canada groups. That is when the lines became blurred with styling and car brands. This is part of the reason why we lost Oldsmobile and Pontiac. recently because of the damage done over time by those centralized groups. You think about those car groups and think about the cars that came out in the late 1980’s and 1990’s and up until now you see why things like Pontiac Torrent happened and it really should not have happened. The article seems to address this and GM are starting to address fundamental issues in the company.
Ooops, 90s was a typo. Obviously, Smith wasn’t that recent. Corrected and corrected 🙂
I worked for GM when Roger Smith was CEO. The guy took a great company and made it into a MONEY LOOSING MACHINE. That is what happens when accountants start running the show. His ideas looked good on paper, BUT in the real world why would you buy a $30,000 Caddie that looked the same as a $10,000 Chevy. Make it look good, run good and be reliable and people will buy. Profits will automatically follow
Until GM goes back to treating it’s brands as INDIVIDUAL members of a family whole, they will keep overlapping on product, price and marketing. It can’t be helped. I’m not saying there needs to be completely different engineering teams along with engines, chassis and so on, but there needs to be a sense of individualism and independence among the brands.
GMs best cars in design and execution were during the years where the brands for all intents and purposes were run as individual car companies under the umbrella of GM as a whole.
Now the “brands” may as well be different model lines from the same label. None of them truly excels because concessions must always be made to ‘stay in your lane’ and make do with what you’re given…or in other words, there’s no true uniqueness.
jzEllis is spot on. There are ways, even today, to share engineering resources and eliminate unnecessary duplication but have each brand be run as an individual division/company within the GM umbrella. Think VWAG/Audi today.
Actually, General Motors abandoned brand autonomy beginning with the “Project 77” program.
I conceived and originally drew the images that became the designs of the 1977-1990 downsized fullsize rear wheel drive Cadillac DeVille’s, Brougham’s and Chevrolet Impala’s, Caprice’s in a Penitentiary Cell and not a General Motors design studio. Prison Staff and inmates were the first to witness and critique those vehicles as well as the 1977-1985 fullsize downsized rear wheel drive Buick’s and Oldsmobile’s. Also the 1979-1985 Cadillac Eldorado, Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Toronado.
I submitted hand drawn original renderings of those designs by mail to the General Motors Institute and the person of Dr. David H. Harry as part of an art portifolio. Dr. George Bush of Northwoods University also witnessed and copied my drawing in person at Marquette Michigan Prison.
Prisoners and Staff liked my designs but complained about a “sameness” of the designs and encouraged me to create a design outside the box so to speak. That is how I came up with the Chevrolet images which turned out to be the favorite among Prison Staff and inmates alike.
Consumers in General Motors design clinics and Motor Trend Magazine agreed obviously. Motor Trend Magazine’s Prestigious “Car of the Year” award was bestowed upon the 1977 Impala and the 1979 Riviera, both of which were my designs. General Motors produced and sold an estimated over ten million cars using my designs and GM build those cars to nearly every detail as I drew them.
I had no idea General Motors would use my designs, they were at the right place at the right time and GM got them for a steal.