GG
Megaposter
Posts: 568
|
 |
« Reply #4 on: 18 July, 2010, 07:26:27 PM » |
|
I was up at the races in Wisconsin and ran into a lower level engineer who worked for Chrysler. After asking how do these firms get to be in such trouble, the inneptitude of older management styles was revealed. Under Cerebus, the goal was to cut costs above all else, and the impact of decisions to outsource maintenance of plant gear, reduce all service parts inventories (for the manuf machines) and stall on repair approvals meant that production took a huge tumble.
He said that now, they are beginning to wind this back, bring production and engineering back in house to get greater control (read: the older Italian model of all in house). and that some of the silliness of the past is being put behind.
Also, he said that Chrysler was big in Asia, China, N America, Fiat in South America and Europe - and that by merging (he said both ways, both sides are contributing) the different distribution strengths, they could make something happen.
Thus, where Fiat is strong, its a Lancia. Where Chrysler is strong, it is badged Chyrsler. Doesn't seem to matter who makes it or designs it - it is governed by sales.
On the one hand, getting a company back on track is a good thing. Losing Lancia identity even further is a real pain - tho its not like we can do anything about it.
One hopes that with time, Lancia design strengths might rekindle "brand identity" - as the Ypsilon and Delta are doing now. Its a long shot, but a possibility. However, for there to be a chnce, the company has to succeed. At least now, it looks like a coherent game plan. Just not one for us purists.
|
