Slashdot Mirror


General Motors To Slash Outsourcing In IT Overhaul

gManZboy writes "GM's new CIO Randy Mott plans to bring nearly all IT work in-house as one piece of a sweeping IT overhaul. It's a high-risk strategy that's similar to what Mott drove at Hewlett-Packard. Today, about 90% of GM's IT services, from running data centers to writing applications, are provided by outsourcing companies such as HP/EDS, IBM, Capgemini, and Wipro, and only 10% are done by GM employees. Mott plans to flip those percentages in about three years--to 90% GM staff, 10% outsourcers. This will require a hiring binge. Mott's larger IT transformation plan doesn't emphasize budget cuts but centers on delivering more value from IT, much faster--at a time when the world's No. 2 automaker (Toyota is now No. 1) is still climbing out of bankruptcy protection and a $50 billion government bailout."

56 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. In-house staff do have advantages by Calibax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In-house staff provide a number of advantages:
            Quicker response from people who actually work for the same orgainzation
            Dedicated staff rather than whoever is free at the moment
            Familiarity with how your business operates
            Longer term institutional memory

    Which taken together provide long term cost savings, mostly because you are investing in your own resources.

    At least you are less likely to be training someone who will be working for your competitor on his next project.

    1. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In-house staff provide a number of advantages:

              Quicker response from people who actually work for the same orgainzation

              Dedicated staff rather than whoever is free at the moment

              Familiarity with how your business operates

              Longer term institutional memory

      Which taken together provide long term cost savings, mostly because you are investing in your own resources.

      At least you are less likely to be training someone who will be working for your competitor on his next project.

      Smart, smart move by GM, who I do not often credit with making many. As a victim of outsourcing a couple times, I've seen how outsourcers operate - bring in the Crash team, of sharp, smart people, who gradually are rotated out to the next Crash site, while rotating in people with little to no experience who spend their days peering over the shoulders of others trying to figure out what they are supposed to be doing (and once they have it figured out to some degree, they leave their employer for a wage they can actually live on.)

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Truth. This happened to one of my employers. We ended up buying out of the contract.

      Cost a major buttload plus screwed the company up for years.

      Then they went on a re-engineering binge.

      Put the final nail in the whole thing.

      What a bunch of clowns running the thing. They got their ideas about IT from playing golf with other CEOs.

    3. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by swillden · · Score: 2

      Which taken together provide long term cost savings, mostly because you are investing in your own resources.

      Not that I disagree at all (or want to), but a citation or two on this would be good to have around if anyone has 'em.

      I'm sure HP/EDS, IBM, Capgemini, and Wipro can provide plenty of citations showing the opposite.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Another big advantage: No middle-men.

      The way that IBM makes money managing GM's IT infrastructure is to pay their people less than GM paid IBM, say 25% less. So if you're GM, you can go to the guys who are currently doing your work and getting a paycheck from IBM, and say "Hey, how would you like a 15% raise to work for us doing the same job you've been doing all along?", get a lot of people to say "Great deal!", and you've just gotten a 10% cost savings.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is far to general a point to prove using studies. Basically, no study can get around the fact that the choice of whether or not to outsource is highly influenced by existing conditions in the company, which in turn are correlated with the outcomes the study is trying to measure.

      So basically we have MBA types (who are biased towards the fashion of the day), vs IT types (who are biased towards whatever they perceive as maximizing the demand for IT employees). IT professionals, like all people, develop a bias towards their own profession, and will therefore oppose measures that they perceive as reducing the demand for IT professionals, such as outsourcing, which consolidates IT tasks into a single company, allowing them be done with less people. Highly skilled IT professionals will also oppose moves that shift demand from highly skilled IT professionals to low-skilled IT professionals.

      Many arguments, some good, some bad, will be made, but the debate will always be muddied by people's inability to separate their own interests (maximizing the demand for whatever kind of skills they happen to have) with the interest of the company (maximizing profit). The quality of debate is also lowered when people are allowed to get away with using weasel words like "short term profits" and "long terms savings" -- at least nominally, companies are expected to maximize total futures earnings (discounted at the interest rate), and unless you can prove that they don't, it is simply a cop-out to label every decision you don't like as "maximizing short term profits".

    6. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by Raistlin77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      10% cost saving which you will likely need to help your new potential employees fight their non-compete contracts with the employer that you just poached them from. And possibly to fight your own lawsuit for poaching them in the first place. Outsourcing firms are typically fully aware of the possibility of losing their mostly underpaid workforce to their clients. Most have non-competes in place for this very reason.

    7. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Informative

      > Smart, smart move by GM, who I do not often credit with making many.

      Don't forget the history here. GM used to own EDS, and it pretty much functioned as their internal IT org.

      And I had many friends look them over, even going so far as to interview, just to test the waters. They'd pay high, but you had to shave all facial hair off and dress exactly as their code dictated. After a probationary period they cut those they didn't see fitting in - which meant you ended up with a bunch of conformists who wouldn't take a risk, by pointing out something may not have been a good idea or there was a weakness in a plan somewhere. Good ol' Ross Perot - run a company like the army.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    8. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Posting A/C because I'm still working at HP...

      Mott was the king of cost cuts. When I started at HP in 2001, HP IT was awesome -- call a number, get an American tech who had a clue. They would even come to your desk, if necessary. Mott "transformed" IT by:

      -Laying off lots of IT workers
      -Forcing most of the remaining IT workers to move to a single location in Texas, or be fired. No telecommuting allowed
      -Making it impossible to purchase any software not on a short "approved" list. Even if it was $20
      -Requiring almost all IT issues to be entered into a web-based ticket system -- an overloaded system that was often slow or down
      -Limiting telephone support to nearly nothing. Login screens directed employees to "use a co-workers PC to enter a ticket"
      -Requiring users to categorize their own tickets. However, the categories were impossible to decipher and I estimate well over 50% of tickets were mis-categorized. Further, mis-categorized tickets were summarily closed as "Resolved" with no hint on what the correct category might be. Further, even if you categorized your ticket correctly, but the level 1 tech didn't find your issue in his checklist, your ticket was closed as "Resolved" -- even though they had NOT resolved your issue.
      -Eliminated desk-side support, forcing 6-figure engineers and managers to do time-consuming IT tasks such as re-imaging rather than paying less expensive IT staff to do the same thing. Further, for hardware failures they shipped you a new PC via UPS/FedEx so you had no working PC for several business days.

      I'm sure all these things saved a ton of money -- for IT. However, it cost the various other HP business units giant wads of money in lost productivity. Since the productivity didn't show up on IT's cost sheet, it didn't matter to Mott.

    9. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by bouldin · · Score: 2

      Here's another advantage: your internal IT organization doesnt skim a 20 - 30% profit off the top.

      Seriously, proponents of strategies like outsourcing and privatization always talk about how these companies increase efficiency. But, since they always have a profit motive, these companies must operate (say) 30% more efficiently just to break even.

    10. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by Admiral+Llama · · Score: 2

      This is a metrics problem. Management typically has to perform versus metrics and if the metrics are shit, the product will be shit as well. "cut IT costs" is a terrible metric by itself given that IT is pervasive to the functionality of a modern corporation.

    11. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And like some people keep trying to drill into other peoples' heads here, business isn't about facial haired, espresso swilling ping pong playing computer hackers coming up with gee wiz bang frameworks. Business is in business to make money. GM isn't a software company. They want reliable un-sexy computer systems that help them get business done. Hiring highly individual IT people who tend to do things like drop new code bases on production servers without telling people because they read a cool article on some web site isn't what they want. They want people who can write code good enough to let them do business. And that is easily maintainable (something that using flavour of the day frameworks that will disappear quickly and will puzzle the hell out of people who have to program this weird shit 15 years from now). GM is not a software company. Sure they need to create some system software, but the majority will be bought and then maintained in house.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    12. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

      GM is a huge company. They have a significant lever. IBM, you will never work in here again if you screw us on transferring employees. In the end, IBM and every other tech consulting firm are a bunch of sluts who will bend over when a big contract is involved.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    13. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nope, I predict an "insourced" but "offshored" branch will be opening soon wherever labor is cheapest.

    14. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They got their ideas about IT from playing golf with other CEOs.

      This is the downside to "professional" CEOs, people (MBAs) who train to be management and nothing else. Never worked in the company before, doesn't understand the business, but they sure can juggle the numbers as if the pieces of paper told the whole story.

      Which ups my admiration for the Steve Jobs/Bill Gates of the world who pretty much built it from the ground up and is in there real nitty gritty, or even Warren Buffett, who at least learns what he buys from the inside out and usually leaves the functioning parts the fuck alone.

    15. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by Shoten · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's a deeper side to this. Back when EDS was still EDS, they were doing a pretty good job for GM. The problem is, HP bought them, and started to apply the same goals/metrics to the services side (formerly EDS) that they use for the product side (that was losing money, and makes fucking printers in the first place). Side note: here is where my self-control keeps me from using terms like "fucking incompetent faggots" and "galactic assclowns" to describe the piss-chugging buttmonkeys that displaced EDS' leadership. As a result, the quality of service that GM got dropped...and the value proposition of outsourcing went with it.

      Now, in all fairness, the fact that HP's leadership couldn't figure out how to get wet if they were dropped in the middle of the ocean is probably only part of the problem. Their ass-pounding mediocrity is probably also compounded by the current political situation and the drive to bring jobs back to the USA. So it's not entirely the fault of a bunch of circle-jerking sycophantic pole-chain-smokers. Just 99.99% their fault.

      Guess who I used to work for before I quit? :)

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    16. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by Shoten · · Score: 2

      This hasn't been true for about 2 decades. I worked for EDS...and interviewed with a goatee, having ridden a motorcycle there (I had the jacket with me as well as the helmet). They didn't notice the piercing until later, but that didn't get me fired and I didn't need to remove it. The days of extreme conformity went out the door back in the early 90s...and at the beginning of EDS, they made sense. For one thing, people normally wore business suits in the first place, and there were no purple suits as we see nowadays on some people...so the rules weren't all *that* radical. And for another, EDS started the outsourcing business. So it was quite a leap for a business to trust them with a critical business function that even they didn't understand all that well (since mainframes were so very new), so being able to project a monolithic, stable image was crucial to their success at earning trust.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    17. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Easy. Find ex-IBM people that were laid off when their jobs were sent overseas. There are a lot of them so it probably won't be hard to find one in your area with the right skills.

    18. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      +1 for you, sir or ma'am, from an unfortunate employee of a company whose IT infrastructure and support have been outsourced to HP. Coming up on one week of waiting for them to pull out their thumbs and either (a) restore our admin access to a server so we can get it unwedged, or (b) log on themselves and issue the ONE FUCKING COMMAND that will unwedge it for us and that we have REPEATEDLY provided TO them.

    19. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by MITguy21 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... They'd pay high, but you had to shave all facial hair off and dress exactly as their code dictated. After a probationary period they cut those they didn't see fitting in - which meant you ended up with a bunch of conformists who wouldn't take a risk, by pointing out something may not have been a good idea or there was a weakness in a plan somewhere. Good ol' Ross Perot - run a company like the army.

      I was working in a mechanical test lab (as a frequent guest) when EDS first appeared at GM -- mid 1980's. A bunch of idiots with brush cuts tried to take over the engineering computing as well as the business computing. Went around putting EDS stickers on anything that looked like a computer. What a disaster, took a year or more to throw them out and get the dedicated real-time control systems back working properly. This may explain (in part) why GM's car engineering got such a bad reputation back then. Plenty of smart GM employees that were not able to do their job.

    20. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2

      Who wants to come work for my IT managed services company? 3 out of the 4 owners have beards, and a different subset of 3 have open tattoos. One shaves his entire head. They've all BTDT in the field, too. The 'best' IT guys we work with (or rather, work for us) are of a similar mold: straight talking, take-no-prisoners (or bullshit) types who are actually quite reasonable individuals. Yes, there is a high per capita of motorcycles other impractical vehicles at the company, but that's kinda a price you pay for being awesome.

      There are only a couple criteria, and most have to do with personality:

      * be polite
      * be honest
      * be competent
      * be clean
      * be prepared for the repercussions if you fail to do any of the above

      Does anyone really think anyone else gives half a shit about how "nice" someone looks or how well they play golf? That might matter to peers, but to most people who actually make money or pay those who do so, what matters is whether or not you actually get things done. Customers who work for a living respect that. You don't want to work for people who aren't used to working for their pay, because they don't think they should have to pay for the same kind of cuckoldry they're using on their customers.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    21. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Informative

      General Dynamics also dropped the EDS clowns a few years ago and went back to a full complement of in-house staff, after they got hit for the second time with a major infestation of spyware.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    22. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by tubs · · Score: 2

      Well, I would have thought it the other way, the client specifies what it wants to outsource, and the outsource company supplies that, at a 20%-30% saving, whilst taking on the clients IT.

      Now, when the client wants, say for example, a new network point put in as offices are being moved, then this is an addition, the outsource company will charge at least 6 x the price that it would take normally, whilst using a contractor to do the work.

      Also, that new employee needs a new computer? Look at £800 for a basic model ... new printer? £200, Dual Monitor setup system? £1600? Oh, you just want to move your office around? You're not allowed to touch the computers, £300 for that.

      --

      try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die

    23. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They got their ideas about IT from playing golf with other CEOs.

      This is the downside to "professional" CEOs, people (MBAs) who train to be management and nothing else. Never worked in the company before, doesn't understand the business, but they sure can juggle the numbers as if the pieces of paper told the whole story.

      Which ups my admiration for the Steve Jobs/Bill Gates of the world who pretty much built it from the ground up and is in there real nitty gritty, or even Warren Buffett, who at least learns what he buys from the inside out and usually leaves the functioning parts the fuck alone.

      Actually, the problem is not the "numbers juggling". It is that they are incompetent at juggling numbers. The numbers, when looked at carefully, say that outsourcing for IT is a losing game and a huge risk in addition (except in a few rare cases). The problem is IMO, that the MBA types deep down know that they cannot do anything well and compensate by treating everybody as inferior. As IT people do not push back (they typically consider this game infantile and stupid, and rightfully so), they get plowed under. That means that first the good ones leave, refusing to play these stupid games, then the mediocre ones leave a bit later and finally only the duds remain.

      The second effect I see is that the MBAs very keenly feel their inferiority to competent IT people and hence try to move them as far away as possible, best into other companies or even out of the country. Stupid, but all too human and what is bound to happen when you put big egos with little skill in charge.

      I think what the MBAs really cannot get their head around to is that they are only support and help for those doing the actual work. They somehow think they are leaders and strategic thinkers, when in fact they are just bean-counters without any insight into the problems they are "managing". My impression is that that the MBA is fundamentally flawed insofar as MBAs are being taught that they are more important than those understanding the actual problems. Possibly an effect of all the competing MBA programs stemming from marketing, i.e. the "Do an MBA with us and you will be a highly respected leader". That is the wrong approach and cannot work well.

      On the plus side, there is a (still small) counter-movement: Evidence-Based Management. Of course the MBAs are not equipped emotionally and intellectually to practice that, so it will be a long and bloody battle. But without it we will see enterprises fail because their IT has become too dysfunctional.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    24. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by malkavian · · Score: 2

      Weird, I've worked in lots of enterprises over the years, and largely, I've found that the real techs prefer automation (we're not paid for what we've already done, we're paid for what we do next).
      Automation is the only way to get time to do what needs doing next. Unless, of course, your basement is the infrastructure you're running.

    25. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by gtall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And guess who Carly Fiorina advises these days....the Republican Party. Saw her on some talking heads pundit show recently, she's just as clueless now as back then. The dumbest bit is that she thinks she's somehow understands how the private sector works well. And Hurd is now working for Oracle. HP has got to stop inflicting their failures on the rest of the country.

    26. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by todrules · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My dad was one of EDS' first 100 employees back in the '60s. My mom described the company as just like the one in the movie "The Firm." Not only did they have the whole super-strict dress code, but even the mothers were "suggested" to hang out with the other EDS wives. The first EDS building on Forest Ln in Dallas had a golf course, tennis courts, and a swimming pool. (Hell, that's even where I learned how to swim.) This was all to keep the men at work, and to work crazy, long hours.

    27. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by rhsanborn · · Score: 5, Informative

      I worked for a while in state government. The IT department had established metrics for all products and services. If the Treasury department wanted a new PC (and the associated management, imaging, desktop support, etc) there was a fixed cost for that, and the Treasury department paid IT for the services it performed. This has a lot of administrative overhead, but it means that "IT" isn't a cost, they actually generate revenue. It forces the consumers of IT to justify their expenses. IT is in a terrible position having to describe why we spent XX amount of money on this particular system, or why we own this many PCs. They ought to be involved in finding out, but the users of the technology need to be involved and need to justify their own use of technology, and aid in making decisions about necessity.

    28. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by BVis · · Score: 2

      Then after they work on it for six months they switch to a new job using the skills they developed working for you and now you're stuck with some useless buzz shit.

      Why should IT be treated any differently than any other division of the company? Employees in all departments do this, because businesses in the USA don't give raises (of any consequence) or improve working conditions to the point at which the employee WANTS to stay. Just like IT, employees in other departments gain experience and skills that tend to make them more valuable (and therefore more marketable). When the company decides not to compensate the employee in line with their new skill set, then said employee leaves. The only real right employees have in this country is to walk away from the job, usually to another company that treats their employees better.

      We don't have indentured servitude in this country. Employees can quit whenever they want (just like they can be fired for no reason). If your company is in the position where its employees use you as a stepping stone to the job they really want, it's not the fault of the worker (who has his/her best interests at heart, which may or may not be in line with his/her employer's interests), it's the corporate culture that causes this to happen.

      Treat your employees like the assets they are, and they'll stay. Treat them like a (negative) number on a balance sheet, and they'll cycle through your company like the proverbial crap through a goose.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    29. Re:In-house staff do have advantages by Creepy · · Score: 2

      Not sure why you defend EDS - massive mismanagement caused multiple contracts to be lost (for instance, OnSTAR), shedding massive amounts of jobs (I survived all 5 waves of layoffs, including the huge one in October 2001 [30%]), then they spun off nearly everything profitable to keep their stock from going junk. They had TWO profitable divisions (of 9) when my group was spun off, and they spun off the other profitable group shortly after. I don't know if any of the last 7 became profitable before the HP purchase, but IMO, EDS was already f***ed.

        As for the metrics, that struggle gets fought everywhere and is extremely frustrating. The company I currently work for wants everything based on an (in-house) manufacturing process, but we are software and they are mainly a manufacturing company. I'm currently also fighting BSI compliance (for a European contract), which is entirely tied to the Waterfall development model and is almost impossible to apply to Agile (and ISO 9001 was hard enough to apply to Agile). I'm just saying, don't think it's just HP.

  2. Good luck with that. by daninaustin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They should be done with hiring right around the time they file for bankruptcy again.

  3. Just about time by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's been about 5 years or so since all IT was outsourced.
    We're right on time for managers to start the in-house cycle again.
    Good luck in the next 5 years and see you all again on the jobmarket in 2017!

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Just about time by gmanterry · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I worked for a large electric utility in IT. We had to submit competitive bids against private companies to provide IT service. We usually were under bid and the IT contract was awarded to an outside company. Usually the service the utility received from the IT people they hired was good at first but soon the response started to slow. Now, when you have customers coming in the front door trying to pay bills and the customer service rep's computer is down, that is the worst of the worst scenarios. I makes an unhappy customer and no way to easily collect payment from the customer. Five or more customer service reps without the tools to do their job is not good. A few times like this while having to wait for the contract IT guys to show up, usually underscores to management the value of having in house people who are able to respond immediately. So like someone said, it went in cycles. In house - contract - in house - etc. They figure when times get tough that they'll take the savings, until the service just gets too bad and the the multivibrator of management flips again.

      --
      Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
    2. Re:Just about time by espiesp · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the reason you can't get a job is mainly because you're a whiny little bitch who blames everybody but themselves.

    3. Re:Just about time by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      It's been about 5 years or so since all IT was outsourced.
      We're right on time for managers to start the in-house cycle again.
      Good luck in the next 5 years and see you all again on the jobmarket in 2017!

      It's not often that I get to play the role of optimist, but this is one of them.

      Oh, I've no doubt that in 5 years Corporate America will cook up some new fad to once again make employment a misery.

      But face it - outsourcing, offshoring was about the bottom of the bucket. I mean yes, they said it could get worse - when India got too expensive the outsourcing would head to Africa, but most of the parts of Africa that have the resources to outsource are probably more expensive than India, and the ones that don't would cost too much to modernize. Not but what it wouldn't be a good idea for their sakes, but altruism was never the reason for outsourcing.

      Outsourcing to India had already bottomed out. The good workers demanded - and got - hefty salaries (relative to India) and the bad ones worked cheap but delivered cheap product. Jobs have been slowly leaking back home for several years now.

      The GM thing, however, is a cannon fired in the night. A major corporation has committed whole-heartedly towards owning their own IT over Lower Prices Everday[TM]. They've said, in effect, that "IT does matter".

  4. more like 7th largest automaker! by nicovl · · Score: 2

    Not sure how you are measuring size but:

    "Volkswagen has retained its place as the number one car company in the world, according to the Forbes Global 2000 companies survey."

    "US poster boy General Motors came in seventh position among the car makers"

    Forbes’ top car makers for 2012
    Volkswagen – 17
    Toyota – 25
    Daimler – 37
    Ford – 44
    Honda – 59
    BMW – 61
    General Motors – 63

    1. Re:more like 7th largest automaker! by Talennor · · Score: 2

      Pretty sure they were using by volume. Possibly the 2010 numbers

      --

      //TODO: signature
    2. Re:more like 7th largest automaker! by Aphonia · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry#Top_vehicle_manufacturing_groups_.3Cby_volume.3E (which does put Toyota #1 and GM #2)

      If you had bothered to read the article you copy-pasted that from, "Volkswagen has retained its place as the number one car company in the world, according to the Forbes Global 2000 companies survey.
      The report ranks the world’s biggest companies across an equal weighting of sales, profits, assets and market value. The result is a company ranking in order of size, with 66 countries represented in the mix." (http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/rankings-worlds-biggest-car-companies-20120420-1xc14.html)

      Think of the brands VW owns versus the brands that GM owns.

    3. Re:more like 7th largest automaker! by bhcompy · · Score: 2

      Tommy: Let's think about this for a sec, Ted. Why would somebody put a guarantee on a box? Hmmm, very interesting.
      Ted Nelson, Customer: Go on, I'm listening.
      Tommy: Here's the way I see it, Ted. Guy puts a fancy guarantee on a box 'cause he wants you to feel all warm and toasty inside.
      Ted Nelson, Customer: Yeah, makes a man feel good.
      Tommy: 'Course it does. Why shouldn't it? Ya figure you put that little box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right, Ted?
      [chuckles until he sees that Ted is not laughing]
      Ted Nelson, Customer: [impatiently] What's your point?
      Tommy: The point is, how do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy; well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. The next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser, and your daughter's knocked up. I seen it a hundred times.
      Ted Nelson, Customer: But why do they put a guarantee on the box?
      Tommy: Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of shit. That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me.
      Ted Nelson, Customer: [pause] Okay, I'll buy from you.

    4. Re:more like 7th largest automaker! by Malc · · Score: 4, Informative

      No they're not. VW are crushing everybody at the moment, in terms of units sold:
      http://www.economist.com/node/21558269

  5. Slash Outsourcing by Spad · · Score: 5, Funny

    I presume that Slash Outsourcing is Slashdot's latest unwanted "channel" to go with that Business Intelligence nonsense?

  6. Hooray! by DCFusor · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm a GM guy, FWIW, and I own a Volt, which I loved at first, and now I love more - it grows on you, especially when you can charge it off solar power. But...the GM web presence is the absolute worst written software I've ever experienced on the web - and I've been here since the BBS days.

    I'm thinking specifically about the MyVolt site. Ok, it's mostly a bunch of ads and info on the Volt - obviously mainly motivated by brain-dead marketing, since it's also the main place owners go to check their car's status.

    So, you push the log in button. Though there's room on the page, oh no, we have to pop up a window to log in on - meanwhile, the animations on the page behind are still loading and running blocking code that makes my other web apps stutter. After maybe 10 seconds, you get the log on window, with it all filled in (thanks firefox) and click the log in button....and you wait, and wait, and wait. Meanwhile, the button you clicked doesn't grey or disable, and clicking it again breaks it. Finally, you're logged in and it starts trying to talk to the car to see what the state of charge is for you. This takes at least two minutes, often ending in "we failed to contact the car, try again?". During those two minutes, it's busy drawing an animation of the state of charge, in blocking code, so my other realtime (stock trading and TV) apps stutter. And, if there was already valid info on the SOC meter, it gets wiped up while you are waiting. It can take over 5 minutes to find out state of charge on this app! Every single page element is reloaded from scratch and re-initialized in response to every single user action, often wiping out valuable data you had already showing each time. And yes, it logs you out every 30 min - during which time you may or may not have gotten the data you wanted. This site must hit 5-6 different (all slow) servers for each redraw. It's obviously done by drag-drop-monkey tools by someone who doesn't even know how to do that, plus a lot of pretty but useless art from some marketing idiot - owners don't need to see more crappy ads for something they already own (are you listening too, Amazon?).

    Anything, and I mean even a site writen by a 13 year old retard who was the nephew of a GM exec would be superior. Thank god, the Volt runs linux in a cluster...that was done mostly inhouse and by IBM, who at least have a clue.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  7. Re:Design Flaw? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes. Michigan is enormous. It's farther from the Detroit to the straits of Macinac than it is from Detroit to New York City, and the straits are only a little over halfway to the border.

    It also has an unusually high-reliability power grid. (It had to be designed for some severe storms and icing.) During the great northeast blackout the problem propagated to the Detroit Windsor boundary, Detroit Edison's equipment detected it, and cut off from the east coast. Pick a spot (like the west side of Ann Arbor) where Detroit Edison and Consolidated meet and you can get redundant feeds from both company's grids (as Compuserve did long ago), in addition to your backup UPS and generator. (Ann Arbor is also a good spot for communication connectivity, too.)

    Michigan's topography breaks up the weather patterns enough that even a few tens of miles of separation often make the difference between a heavy storm and clear skies.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  8. Wal-Mart doesn't outsource their IT by rollingcalf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And they are the king of cost-cutting. They outsource many other things, but still insist on keeping their IT in-house.

    --
    ---------
    There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    1. Re:Wal-Mart doesn't outsource their IT by sapgau · · Score: 4, Interesting

      +1
      Wall Mart is the case study for Business Intelligence, Data warehousing, Data Mining, etc... They analyze every little trend in their inventory, sales, customer traffic, etc.
      I remember reading one time they placed beer next to diapers during the week at night because that's was when young dads make a quick run to restock, coming out with diapers in one arm and a six pack on the other.

      There is no way you can outsource that and remain competitive.

  9. Not high-risk at all by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What was high-risk was outsourcing to the likes of IBM, HP, CapGemeni, wipepro, etc. who outsource the work to India or China. That information is then able to be used against GM. Real stupid on GM's part.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  10. Re:Design Flaw? by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Michigan is roughly as big as the U.K., maybe that will bring some perspective.

    --
    Good-bye
  11. Choose what you outsource by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 2

    I have a simple rule:

    Out-source monkey work. If it's something you can write instructions for that're sufficiently clear and detailed that a moderately-housebroken monkey can follow them successfully, it's a candidate for outsourcing.

    In-source anything requiring intelligence, business knowledge or judgement. If you're depending on the people doing the job to know what they're doing and do it well then you want people that you have control over, you don't want people who answer to someone else. To find out who they answer to, ask one question: "Who signs their paycheck?". That's who they answer to.

    Regardless of the above, in-source anything where a failure will cause a business interruption. If it's going to stop your business from operating if it's not working right, you want the people responsible for it under your control and answering to you. That way you can decide whether it's worth the overtime to keep them in until it's fixed. You do not want that decision left in the hands of someone whose business isn't being impacted by the problem and who won't suffer if the problem continues.

  12. Re:Design Flaw? by napoleon_jo · · Score: 2

    Ugh, I'm a noob, DTE lost power, Consumers did not*

  13. Re:Design Flaw? by Darth_brooks · · Score: 4, Informative

    Let's start with all the stuff you missed:

    -As the google map flies, it's 289 miles from the D to the Big Mac. It's about 600 to NYC. (Although it is about the same distance from Detroit to Ironwood, MI, which sits on the Michigan / Wisconsin border. )

    -Consumers Power handles most of the non-DTE grid space. DTE's western border is about 20 miles from Ann Arbor's west side

    -During the Northeast blackout, plenty of (I dare say most of) the DTE grid went down. The cutoff was where the grids switched over in either Flint of Jackson. We were back online a little faster than most places, but we were down for 24+ hours.

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
  14. It's how you want to go when you are large by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You only outsource general functions like IT, payroll, maintenance and so on when you are small enough that it makes economic sense to do so. When the amount and kind of service you need is such that it would cost more to employ people in house than to outsource it, you do. However when you get large, it is silly to outsource. You can get it cheaper in house since you are large enough to need the equivalent of many full time people working for you, and if they are outsourced it is just another layer of cost.

    A small business of 5 people? Ya you probably want to outsource IT needs (and other stuff). It would be infeasible to hire an IT person and have 17% of your staff be IT. A company of twenty thousand people? Don't outsource it, you will need a hundred plus IT people anyhow, might as well have them work directly for you.

    1. Re:It's how you want to go when you are large by rsborg · · Score: 2

      When the amount and kind of service you need is such that it would cost more to employ people in house than to outsource it, you do. However when you get large, it is silly to outsource.

      Many very large companies (Apple, Microsoft, Google included) outsource some of their IT work to increase flexibility. Implementing a new Oracle/SAP module? Hire proficient folks on-demand, and manage them with internal employees. Of course, doing this kind of work requires a lot of proficiency as you need to prevent contractor and subs from gaming the system, but with a large enough scale it can be economical and provide strategic agility.

      That said, I'm glad GM is doing what is likely the right thing - contractors, if not managed properly will drain your budget while providing substandard output. With ever-improving skillsets here in the US (as opposed to 10 years ago, when competent IT was hard to find) and a focus on implementing the right solutions as opposed to whatever Microsoft/IBM/Oracle shove your way, will really help out the organization as a whole.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    2. Re:It's how you want to go when you are large by rhsanborn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The other benefit is that you get not only people running your IT infrastructure, but you can likely leverage those people on your product lines. Want to integrate cars with phones? Maybe you should go pull some talent from the group that is doing other app development, etc. It gives you in-house talent to move into new and interesting areas.

  15. Re:Design Flaw? by SScorpio · · Score: 2

    Detroit did lose power and is DTE, but I know it didn't hit Grand Rapids which is not DTE. Ann Arbor is still on DTE and I believe power was lost there.

    You can see the areas DTE services on their outage map.

    http://dteenergy.com/map/outage.html/

  16. Re:yeah, how are the sales on those Volt's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Does anyone really believe that the tens of billions of dollars that the govt gave to GM actually fixed the problem? Their cost's are still too high relative to the competition. and there are a lot of people that will never purchase another GM product while the Govt has any stake in the company. I was only half kidding about the 3 years. Europe is heading into another recession (or worse). China is slowing down and the US economy stinks (and may get a lot worse if things in the rest of the world go to shit.) An IT re-org is nothing more than re-arranging the deck chairs.

    I gave up buying GM products a long time ago despite my family being diehard Cadillac and Oldsmobile owners when I was growing up. Frankly, it was all about quality, long before gubmint had a stake in the company. They have probably fixed the quality problem by now, but I'll never find out. There have been one or two cars they've made in the last twenty years that I was a bit interested in, but never enough to give up my American made Toyotas and Hondas.

    And despite me not buying their cars, GM still manages to be the number one automobile producer in the world. I have no doubt that when push comes to shove, GM will figure out how to sell Volts.