Are Ford Executives Dumb?

[Pelican]

They are too busy working on the transformation of the Detroit train station. Spending millions. Not fixing Ford issues we paid thousands for.

Not familiar with this endeavor. Please elaborate.

Sponsored

 

[Bossharp]

I ordered the simplest F-150 (RCSB XL) in part to avoid the complexity of higher trims and of course cost. Do we need massaging seats huge sunroofs heated seats and steering wheel? Well some do and are willing to pay the cost. But I'm glad Ford sells a fairly basic truck. I do wish I could have ordered a power driver's seat and I DID chose a 2024 to get the 12" center screen and dash..

 

[BigJim]

Not familiar with this endeavor. Please elaborate.

I believe Ricksc is referring to this:

 

[Pelican]

I believe Ricksc is referring to this:

Thank you for sharing. Much appreciated.

 

[thudnblunder]

My F-150 is supposed to be built at the end of this month. Since I have been waiting, I have read everything I could about the vehicle on this forum and elsewhere to learn about it. Found this video where a Ford executive discusses the fact that they ‘outsourced’ the 150+ modules to 150 companies including the software. Those companies own the IP (intellectually property) rights and Ford has to go back and ask them to write new software if there is a problem. He states that they will bring the process in-house but it will take many years for that to happen.

Can‘t seem to comprehend how any executive would agree to subcontract ‘core competencies’ to save very little money, (he says that it’s $350-500/vehicle). I see so many issues on this forum that seem to be software related -I.e. BMS, TSM, DSP, etc. Seems that Ford really dropped the ball on this one. When Apple had problems with their iPhone antenna (2 or 3), Steve Jobs called the executive in charge of antennas and fired him on the spot.

It would be ideal if Ford had the engineering resources to do it all in house but you could argue that Ford’s core competencies are engine design, transmission design, suspension, frame, body etc and the rest they turn to other specialists for who have a core competency in that domain.

We see it for things like *cough* airbags, *cough* wiper motors, or even things like bulbs, and tires.

Instead of cost cutting alone, this is a way to get access to skillsets that Ford does not have in house. A problem with insisting on everything done in house means you can’t use new technology unless you hire and train people for it. And you’re not as able to go try new technology because first you have to hire and build a team, and that needs time and approvals, and very soon you start falling behind your competitors.

As the vehicles get more complex, the software also gets progressively more complex to the point where an outsourced developer is very specialized in the type of software they develop. As AI becomes more embedded, you’ll see another wave of this since not everyone has the datasets, skill, or resources to train machine learning models.

Now how do you make it all work together? It’s not too different from how you’d do it in house. You build an API (Application Programming Interface) that is the protocol these components use to exchange data. This way everyone can work on their own piece of code, and make changes but as long as the API remains unchanged, it will all work together. This is how almost all software at scale operates today.

I will say though, it doesn’t make sense to me why Ford wouldn’t own rights to the code developed for them. They’re not a tiny shop running commodity off the shelf software. This stuff is developed for them. To me it sounds more like they don’t k ow how to change the code to make it do what they want without going through the vendor they used to develop it.

 

[WhiteLightningnshitshadow]

Im a firm believer in getting it right the first time. Im fine with development work getting subbed out under Fords management, but Im not okay with an SDRL that eventually leads to compatibility issues and future updates. The amount of updates a truck should receive after leaving the factory better be damn close to 0. The transmission software is still a disaster.

 

[Bossharp]

I really don't understand WHY our trucks need a update.. Should it not work great when it rolls out the plant? GPS sure.. Things change but a transmission? I just don't get it.

 

[redline]

yes

/thread

it was a good idea 20 years ago, but as cars turn more into a computer and modules need to talk and work together bad idea …

it is Tesla advantage right now that they own the software they use and can make advancements very quickly

 

[redline]

Cause of dev/ops

speed is more important then perfect… make it sort of work then figure out 6he rear later …

 

[WD8CXB]

I have had ZERO issues with the navigation in my 22. None. It is actually much better than my cell phone connected to it. Plus i never have to worry about losing signal.

I too have had problems where it tells you to turn at the last minute. It does show you on the screen in advance when to turn but that would mean you need to keep checking the screen which takes your eyes off the road. When my wife is with me she will tell me of an upcoming routing change to eliminate waiting for the navigations system to tell me.

 

[Sojourner]

Found this video where a Ford executive discusses the fact that they ‘outsourced’ the 150+ modules to 150 companies including the software. Those companies own the IP (intellectually property) rights....

Think of all the (non)vetting for security issues that needs to happen. So are our vehicles actually IT secure on the inside (i.e., source code level), nevermind from the outside (i.e., hacking)? (Somewhat of a rhetorical question....)

As a software development manager, one of the worst things you can do is not own the code. You can contract out the development, but own the rights to the code.

"Proving" the point of an article a few years back about whether you actually own your car. Bottom line, you legally may not (or, at least, certain portions of it). Just like gaming systems, cell phones, computers, etc. You're granted a license to use....

Great for "them," garbage for us (i.e., the folks who are paying for the truck).

Cause of dev/ops

speed is more important then perfect… make it sort of work then figure out 6he rear later …

Yup. The state of perpetual Beta.

 

[STM]

Several mentions of iPhone and Tesla doing in house development in this thread.. iPhones are a premium product and people are willing to pay the premium.. So Apple can afford to do all the development in house..and charge over $1,000 for a tiny piece of hardware..
Tesla used to be able to command high premiums with a loyal customer base who were willing to pay the premium and live with many glitches and imperfections. With Tesla that is changing now as the committed buyers all own Teslas and now Tesla is having to reduce prices to attract non EV buyers..
This is not a luxury traditional automobile companies have.. Yes, they could do all the development in house but that would add significant time and cost to the development.

Instead, Ford and other companies go to component manufacturers who specialize in their products and sell their products to multiple companies and are able to spread the development costs.. If every auto company spent the money to develop every module, the prices would be prohibitive..

It is easy to criticize auto companies but they are typically choosing the most competitive path so they can sell their products at the current prices which we already think are too high! If every auto maker did all the development in house, the prices would be way higher!

 

[Cobra129]

My F-150 is supposed to be built at the end of this month. Since I have been waiting, I have read everything I could about the vehicle on this forum and elsewhere to learn about it. Found this video where a Ford executive discusses the fact that they ‘outsourced’ the 150+ modules to 150 companies including the software. Those companies own the IP (intellectually property) rights and Ford has to go back and ask them to write new software if there is a problem. He states that they will bring the process in-house but it will take many years for that to happen.

Can‘t seem to comprehend how any executive would agree to subcontract ‘core competencies’ to save very little money, (he says that it’s $350-500/vehicle). I see so many issues on this forum that seem to be software related -I.e. BMS, TSM, DSP, etc. Seems that Ford really dropped the ball on this one. When Apple had problems with their iPhone antenna (2 or 3), Steve Jobs called the executive in charge of antennas and fired him on the spot.

Ask Boeing about outsourcing and quality!!!

 

[Old Hat]

I trust that Ford, just like any other company, makes their decisions based on what is best for them, which of course must also relate to what is best for buyers or they will lose market share. If that means outsourcing software I really don't care. If not for this thread I wouldn't even know about it!

Like everyone else, I'll continue to make my choice of vehicles based on what works best for me. So far, my 2022 F-150 is doing just fine.

 

[PaulGrun]

My F-150 is supposed to be built at the end of this month. Since I have been waiting, I have read everything I could about the vehicle on this forum and elsewhere to learn about it. Found this video where a Ford executive discusses the fact that they ‘outsourced’ the 150+ modules to 150 companies including the software. Those companies own the IP (intellectually property) rights and Ford has to go back and ask them to write new software if there is a problem. He states that they will bring the process in-house but it will take many years for that to happen.

Can‘t seem to comprehend how any executive would agree to subcontract ‘core competencies’ to save very little money, (he says that it’s $350-500/vehicle). I see so many issues on this forum that seem to be software related -I.e. BMS, TSM, DSP, etc. Seems that Ford really dropped the ball on this one. When Apple had problems with their iPhone antenna (2 or 3), Steve Jobs called the executive in charge of antennas and fired him on the spot.

You’re not entirely wrong.
But you underestimate the cost of developing that capacity in-house, which is ENORMOUS, and the time it takes to develop that expertise which is somewhere from years to decades.
So there really was no choice.
Don’t believe it? Just look at how long it took a major company whose sole focus is software, to develop a somewhat reliable product development cycle and to release quasi-reliable products. Microsoft has been at it for decades and arguably just recently got (most of the way) there. The battle field is littered with the dead bodies of companies that tried and failed.
I am not excusing the relatively poor quality of Ford’s products by any means, just pointing out the reality.
IMHO (41 year alumnus of the high tech computer world where complex system design is derigeur) Ford needs major improvements in:
- System design. You can’t just hang a bunch of subsystems off a shared bus or two and hope it’ll work.
- System design Validation. IMO this is the weakest spot right now.
- Debug Validation. Once you’ve debugged a problem, did you actually solve it? What other independent subsystems did you screw up?
- System Validation. This is different from System Design Validation.
- Most important of all, Configuration Management and Release Control. More than once, Ford has released two consecutive fixes with the SAME revision number!
- And of course the OTA system is a shambles. Amazing it works at all.
So yeah, they’ve got a LOT of work ahead of them and competent hw/sw engineers don’t grow on trees, nor does the necessary management skill.
All IMHO of course.

Sponsored