"the student teaching the teacher" bit pompus?

"the student teaching the teacher"??????

that is a little off base, it is more to do with the fact that Toyota has solid metrics, incremental improvement initiatives, accountability, clear vision and plan, and strong leadership.

GM has been sitting on their hands appeasing Unions for how many decades??? They constantly look for the quick fix

This is more about what not to do...

Heck, who cares which corp. is selling the most when they are still selling you motorized horse and buggies.

Way to go sunnyside! I also agree with our guest in post #2.

http://www.bnet.com/2403-13241_23-60695.html

came across this

Nice article that sort of addresses the quality problem, on the other hand if they produced a perfect vehicle that had no flaws, it would not save them.

Besides the QC problems the 'not so big three' have, their major disadvantage is their pension deficits, a far too large proportion of every dollar goes to service the pensions, I have heard as high as $0.80 of every dollar for one manufacturer, from privileged sources. This they brought on themselves, when back in the 50's the unions asked for pensions. The union plan was for a centralized administration of a pension plan for all auto workers. The manufacturers were horrified, how would they retain workers if the pension was portable, one would pay to train the worker only to have them leave for another manufacturer offering more. So in response each offered a pension plan administered by themselves, the union voted this down three times before eventually giving up and accepting the program. Fast forward to today and we have several different plans at several different manufactures with all the costs involved and a work force that is shrinking, and not contributing to the various plans.

This same scenario happened at Bethlehem Steel who at one time supplied almost all the steel used in the US. Where are they now?

Too little too late, over paid executives, wrong programs being implemented, the North American traditional automakers are rapidly approaching extinction, sad but true.

The Zen mind will always prevail.

In such as Toyota, "Information Design" applies to the whole information flow on every facet of the supply chain, manufacturing processes, distribution system, marketing, QA, servicing - and out of that comes what performance is required and then what it can/might look like.

In Britain of 'failed' and the US of 'failing', a "designer" is a stylist who plays with clay to fit an engineering mix negotiated via accounting with in-office sales heads.

Nobody innovates as it is seen as 'disloyal' to say the competition is ahead, engineering has 'traditional expertise' meaning they have no budget for innovation or they have no idea what the sales people really mean - so what to R&D.

Cause? Zero "Designed" information system.

For US makers to survive they need to throw away virtually every management protocol and hierarchy tradition and invite/beg/plead for re-design of the information pathways.

I was fascinated reading the link in post 5 by HUX.

Gold HUX - Thanks.

Not only did they send a "spy team" completely ignorant of Japanese industry, pay rates, hierarchy, social moors and social welfare economics, to Japan, but the team focused on $ symptoms and nuts and bolts.

NOT! on how "Toyota the design system" arrives at a successful product mix - but "what's the bottom line of their BOM?". This is classic 'write design brief' with no idea of "core criteria".

What possible difference can 'what theirs costs' make if your crap product is being rejected by the consumer?

Surly; how to get a design the consumer wants: is the 'core need'?

Q1 how do people make purchase decisions?

A1. Will it do what I want it to do? - 'functional criteria'

A2. Is it value for money? - (inc service life, resale value) 'value analysis'

A3 will it get me laid or admired? - 'emotive analysis'

A4. Can I afford the credit? on what A 1 > 3 have made me 'NEED!"?

But A4 doesn't happen if ID failed A1 > 3.

GM A4 focus deliberately designed an information vacuum on A1 > 3

So far as the student teaching the teacher; what teacher?

The nearest to an Information Design System in the US auto industry was Henry Ford, Edsel and his 'designer', E.T. (Bob) Gregorie, who reported directly. http://www.fomoconews.com/forums/showthread.php?t=888

The car Edsel was the outcome of information walls built by management to obtain self interest benchmarks the consumer had no conceivable interest in. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel)

So what subjects in the Industrial Design curriculum teach how to design a Toyota management information system, which enables design, or how to fix a GM management self deception system which disables design?

None

How are the skills in A1 > 3 ranked in ID practice and education? – In reverse? Yes they are!

An Industrial designer may learn how to enable a company to design, given a decade or a mentor. So might anybody.

How then has Industrial Design any relevance to GM's demise or Toyota's win?

Simply put;

Form follows Function, almost all of the major auto makes have forgotten this.

then again you said more of less the same thing, just more indepth.

Thanks Dances with Trees, I was actually going to great lengths to avoid "form follows function", or the equally trite opposite position, subject of countless academic Ph D's in Design.

But as you have raised the opportunity for a pet rant...

To my mind it is inane to postulate mightily on two sides of a three sided process. I have yet to see a thesis that acknowledges innovation in technology as a driving third of the equation.

Then again, they may still be publishing it on the Caxton press, making their calls on a wood and Bakelite Alexander Bell original, whilst pondering their ice box. (examples not chosen at random)

These are the 'teachers' of these poor students. The "Designers" who still have no idea why they couldn't make it industry or basking in that Egyptian water course

It would be ROLMFAO if it didn't take a year minimum to re-educate a 'deer in the headlights' graduate in what design actually is - then maybe you get 'appropriate criteria ranking', 'appropriate technology for the "function"', 'appropriate manufacturing & economics', 'appropriate to market aesthetics' or what is called a "DESIGN!" and the most abused word ever!!!! () pant, pant....

Ok, back to

The fact is Industrial Design has self defeating intake criteria and is pathetically taught and assessed throughout. It has, since the; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauhaus, progressively un-designed itself.

So much so, that you, as engineers, will regard a 'designer' as a waste of space. Whereas a good designer is a resource that gets you the data and the information systems, you need to do a task.

A good designer can make a product/engineering brief out of what the market 'actually wants', (see Toyota) as opposed to what "marketing" thinks engineering aught to do (see GM).

If you have been an engineer or in the technical side of product development, you will have had many briefs that make no sense and/or can't/never work.

A good designer knows enough of every skill-set to communicate, to search out the real information, create an agreed workable mix and design/conduct the information process.

THIS! is the actual job!

A favorite of mine is ask a design school "how can I personalise a mobile phone?" and see if they start talking "clip-on fascia" - or can even consider 'down loadable ring tone" as an "Industrial Design" solution - I'd like to say they never have - but last year one lecturer did mentioned it.

Unfortunately, the education system filters out this 'information design/solving' ability in favor of "a sense of styling (that matches their own)".

In an international market and increasing ethnic diversity (wide range native aesthetic variances) this is DOUBLY STUPID!!!!

I present a serendipitous multi-way tautology - Note; header, project strategy, successful incumbent, successful candidate.

I'm ignoring that they actually think "research" - not "search" is required here (except the one in 'bounding conventions' I couldn't resist).

The italics are mine, as is removing their identity.

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer in Product Design Engineering-

Join a dynamic team with one of ###### most innovative universities. An enthusiastic and capable Lecturer/Senior Lecturer is sought to teach engineering aspects of design to engineering and product design students. The successful incumbent will have experience and knowledge of computer based design or engineering, rapid prototyping and the SAE/ Electric Car project or a similar project group is desirable. You will have a keen interest in developing and undertaking research in engineering and a research interest in the general area of Engineering Design.

Your key responsibilities will include contributing to the development, implementation and delivery of high quality educational programs, coordination of the undergraduate and postgraduate coursework programs, developing Design research in accordance with the Faculty and University strategic directions and participating in Faculty strategic planning activities.

As the successful candidate you will have a PhD in Engineering Design or a related Engineering discipline, a record of high quality research publications, experience in high quality teaching and curriculum development and eligibility for membership of Engineers ######.

I guess I must have missed something since I am a designer and engineer.

Then again I do think out of the bx since I have never been trapped inside a box, I was lucky I never needed Art School to teach me how to design something, for me it is a natural.

A PHD is an interesting thing, and for pure research a must, for teaching, not.

Piled Higher and Deeper as it is also known comes from the failed research types who pollute the minds of budding students to become nothing more than lemmings and sheep.

As far as the information system as a whole, nothing has really changed, it has simple become faster to and somewhat more complicated by poorly designed software that was designed by some sheep.

The North American auto industry is run by accountants, and that is the reason why they are failing. The view is to the next quarter, not years down the road, and until that changes all the designers in the world are not going to fix a thing. Ford may be the exception, and that is because Ford is run by 'car people' who understand the passion for the automobile in North America. This passion is alive and well and it is spreading world wide in small pockets on every continent. Will they be enough to save the auto industry for the accountants and tree huger, who knows, only time will tell. Probably one of the only good things to come out of this depression is California teetering on finical collapse, maybe now the self interest and nationally crippling legislation will come to an end, again who knows.

now I need to get some sleep.

Ditto in every respect