Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Philly.com)   GM finally found the poor bastard that will be blamed for their switch problems   (philly.com) divider line 70
    More: Followup, A General Motors, file format, ignition switches, Commerce Committee, steering, switches, Chevrolet Cobalt  
•       •       •

4312 clicks; posted to Business » on 01 Apr 2014 at 10:44 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-01 10:50:53 AM  
All those poor people that don't know how to drive a car without power steering and airbags.
 
2014-04-01 10:51:49 AM  
What's the odds he was told to approve them or find a new job?
 
2014-04-01 10:52:55 AM  
Of course he OK'd the switches. He was told by management he had to reduce part costs, and the only option was to use inferior products.
 
2014-04-01 11:09:42 AM  
No corrective lenses tonight Mr. PapaGiorgio?
 
2014-04-01 11:10:45 AM  

hinten: All those poor people that don't know how to drive a car without power steering and airbags.


To be fair, it's a lot harder to steer a car with power steering that doesn't work, as opposed to a car that doesn't have power steering at all.
 
2014-04-01 11:16:45 AM  
Wasn't everyone's solution to Toyota's sticking accelerator issue that you just needed to turn the cars off to be safe? Well which is it!?

But seriously, I'm more concerned about the stories a few months ago dismissing the (then 6) deaths as all being as a result of driving off road so there was really nothing to worry about. Is that still the claim or was that yet another lie?

/Drives a Cobalt at work
 
2014-04-01 11:17:58 AM  
Jimmy Smits?
 
2014-04-01 11:29:25 AM  
Publicly named.
Note that he's out from under the protective corporate umbrella.
That's some harsh shiat.
 
2014-04-01 11:29:57 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: What's the odds he was told to approve them or find a new job?


About 0.

I've participated in the design process at GM, and the engineers there believe themselves to be the ultimate gods and arbitrators of everything that goes into the cars. I've seen a Buick engineer spend tens of thousands of dollars in engineering time (costing their suppliers, not GM), over lighting settings that at the end of the day, were exactly the same as the settings at the beginning of the day, because she believed she could see the difference in 2 candelas.

They can easily say "no" and reject a suppliers' parts. It happens all the time, even when there is a hard deadline.

DeGiorgio is screwed. He signed off on something that he later testified that he had not approved. He was lazy and got caught. The supplier certainly shares some blame here, as they have more detailed specs for these small parts than you can imagine. The parts are supposed to be tested on the bench, in prototype vehicles, and in numerous environmental and stress jigs. Anybody that's stepped foot in the buildings at the Warren Tech center knows what I am talking about.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out those tests had been skipped for this part - and that will fall on DeGiorgio as well, since it is his responsibility to make sure those tests are performed and passed. If he signed off on tests that weren't performed... well, let's just say it's going to be a bad day for him.
 
2014-04-01 11:30:48 AM  
Doesn't matter who did it or what the approving engineer's name was or is.

GM is still liable for selling a deadly product for a decade after they knew about the danger.
 
2014-04-01 11:30:54 AM  
That kind of decision is never made by one person.  Everyone is in the loop on that stuff.
 
2014-04-01 11:35:40 AM  

LesserEvil: Smeggy Smurf: What's the odds he was told to approve them or find a new job?

About 0.

I've participated in the design process at GM, and the engineers there believe themselves to be the ultimate gods and arbitrators of everything that goes into the cars. I've seen a Buick engineer spend tens of thousands of dollars in engineering time (costing their suppliers, not GM), over lighting settings that at the end of the day, were exactly the same as the settings at the beginning of the day, because she believed she could see the difference in 2 candelas.

They can easily say "no" and reject a suppliers' parts. It happens all the time, even when there is a hard deadline.

DeGiorgio is screwed. He signed off on something that he later testified that he had not approved. He was lazy and got caught. The supplier certainly shares some blame here, as they have more detailed specs for these small parts than you can imagine. The parts are supposed to be tested on the bench, in prototype vehicles, and in numerous environmental and stress jigs. Anybody that's stepped foot in the buildings at the Warren Tech center knows what I am talking about.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out those tests had been skipped for this part - and that will fall on DeGiorgio as well, since it is his responsibility to make sure those tests are performed and passed. If he signed off on tests that weren't performed... well, let's just say it's going to be a bad day for him.


All that is stated in the article was that he signed off on a change but he testified he did not sign off on a change in the tumbler mechinism.  I would love to see the change notice given by delphi to see if it stated the tumble mechanism or if the change notice was something innocuous like a a reduciton in the body or faceplate finish.
 
2014-04-01 11:48:33 AM  
Was it this guy?

4-ps.googleusercontent.com

/can't possibly be obscure
 
2014-04-01 11:56:17 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: What's the odds he was told to approve them or find a new job?


Pretty slim actually.

More likely there was an atmosphere of "get it done" and "time is money" that creative an atmosphere that would inevitably lead to shortcuts.

/Not that I have ever worked in such a place.
//Please don't fire me.
 
2014-04-01 11:57:22 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Publicly named.
Note that he's out from under the protective corporate umbrella.
That's some harsh shiat.


Well sure. He's just a lowly worker drone from sector G. He's not part of the important executive class that is worthy of corporate protection.
 
2014-04-01 12:00:05 PM  

www.roguetraderette.com

 
2014-04-01 12:00:38 PM  
Engineers don't issue recalls. He may have designed or signed off on a crappy switch (almost every auto manufacturer has issued a recall at some point in time) the but the real issue is GM sat on the knowledge that this particular deficient part resulted in crashes and death and did nothing about it for 10+ years.
 
2014-04-01 12:12:40 PM  

Needlessly Complicated: Was it this guy?

[4-ps.googleusercontent.com image 500x292]

/can't possibly be obscure


My goodness, how I love the drugs!
 
2014-04-01 12:14:09 PM  

Saiga410: LesserEvil: Smeggy Smurf: What's the odds he was told to approve them or find a new job?

About 0.

I've participated in the design process at GM, and the engineers there believe themselves to be the ultimate gods and arbitrators of everything that goes into the cars. I've seen a Buick engineer spend tens of thousands of dollars in engineering time (costing their suppliers, not GM), over lighting settings that at the end of the day, were exactly the same as the settings at the beginning of the day, because she believed she could see the difference in 2 candelas.

They can easily say "no" and reject a suppliers' parts. It happens all the time, even when there is a hard deadline.

DeGiorgio is screwed. He signed off on something that he later testified that he had not approved. He was lazy and got caught. The supplier certainly shares some blame here, as they have more detailed specs for these small parts than you can imagine. The parts are supposed to be tested on the bench, in prototype vehicles, and in numerous environmental and stress jigs. Anybody that's stepped foot in the buildings at the Warren Tech center knows what I am talking about.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out those tests had been skipped for this part - and that will fall on DeGiorgio as well, since it is his responsibility to make sure those tests are performed and passed. If he signed off on tests that weren't performed... well, let's just say it's going to be a bad day for him.

All that is stated in the article was that he signed off on a change but he testified he did not sign off on a change in the tumbler mechinism.  I would love to see the change notice given by delphi to see if it stated the tumble mechanism or if the change notice was something innocuous like a a reduciton in the body or faceplate finish.


It's possible the change was buried under something else... but he still has the responsibility for looking at the documents and drawings, as well as retesting the part.

monoski: Engineers don't issue recalls. He may have designed or signed off on a crappy switch (almost every auto manufacturer has issued a recall at some point in time) the but the real issue is GM sat on the knowledge that this particular deficient part resulted in crashes and death and did nothing about it for 10+ years.


That is also certainly true.

I will note that there are probably a lot of engineers in Warren, Milford, Yuma and other locations around the country who are taking note and reviewing their own past approvals, and they'll be taking far greater care in the future.
 
2014-04-01 12:17:13 PM  

LesserEvil: Smeggy Smurf: What's the odds he was told to approve them or find a new job?

About 0.

I've participated in the design process at GM, and the engineers there believe themselves to be the ultimate gods and arbitrators of everything that goes into the cars. I've seen a Buick engineer spend tens of thousands of dollars in engineering time (costing their suppliers, not GM), over lighting settings that at the end of the day, were exactly the same as the settings at the beginning of the day, because she believed she could see the difference in 2 candelas.

They can easily say "no" and reject a suppliers' parts. It happens all the time, even when there is a hard deadline.

DeGiorgio is screwed. He signed off on something that he later testified that he had not approved. He was lazy and got caught. The supplier certainly shares some blame here, as they have more detailed specs for these small parts than you can imagine. The parts are supposed to be tested on the bench, in prototype vehicles, and in numerous environmental and stress jigs. Anybody that's stepped foot in the buildings at the Warren Tech center knows what I am talking about.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out those tests had been skipped for this part - and that will fall on DeGiorgio as well, since it is his responsibility to make sure those tests are performed and passed. If he signed off on tests that weren't performed... well, let's just say it's going to be a bad day for him.


Ah, so much like architecture the ego reigns supreme to the detriment of all
 
2014-04-01 12:25:49 PM  
It's that old Greek saying: "The fish stinks from the tail."
 
2014-04-01 12:30:32 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Publicly named.
Note that he's out from under the protective corporate umbrella.
That's some harsh shiat.


He should be still insured under any E&O / D&O policy
 
2014-04-01 12:42:17 PM  

hinten: All those poor people that don't know how to drive a car without power steering and airbags.


Airbags? Oh, you mean those mandated safety devices that customers paid for and were assured by GM that they worked?

Yeah, Laughter OL, stupid people cant has drive.
 
2014-04-01 12:47:47 PM  

SpectroBoy: HotIgneous Intruder: Publicly named.
Note that he's out from under the protective corporate umbrella.
That's some harsh shiat.

Well sure. He's just a lowly worker drone from sector G. He's not part of the important executive class that is worthy of corporate protection.


It is pretty doubtful that he would be found personally liable. For something like that somebody would need to prove negligence. As long as he actually reviewed the design or whatever constitutes normal diligence in his role/area of expertise then he is safe. Now if he falsified testing results or something, then yeah his bank account is SOL.
 
2014-04-01 12:48:01 PM  

monoski: Engineers don't issue recalls. He may have designed or signed off on a crappy switch (almost every auto manufacturer has issued a recall at some point in time) the but the real issue is GM sat on the knowledge that this particular deficient part resulted in crashes and death and did nothing about it for 10+ years.


Good point.

Any person can make a mistake. It takes a corporation to cover it up for years while people die.
 
2014-04-01 12:51:39 PM  
I think he might lose health care.
 
2014-04-01 12:56:32 PM  
I presume he would be a PE.  Would this cost him his license?
 
2014-04-01 12:57:52 PM  

Saiga410: All that is stated in the article was that he signed off on a change but he testified he did not sign off on a change in the tumbler mechinism.  I would love to see the change notice given by delphi to see if it stated the tumble mechanism or if the change notice was something innocuous like a a reduciton in the body or faceplate finish.


Suppliers make changes all the time without getting approval from engineering.  The tumble mechanism could have been black box to the switch assembly so no approval would have been required.
 
2014-04-01 12:59:57 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: LesserEvil: Smeggy Smurf: What's the odds he was told to approve them or find a new job?

About 0.

I've participated in the design process at GM, and the engineers there believe themselves to be the ultimate gods and arbitrators of everything that goes into the cars. I've seen a Buick engineer spend tens of thousands of dollars in engineering time (costing their suppliers, not GM), over lighting settings that at the end of the day, were exactly the same as the settings at the beginning of the day, because she believed she could see the difference in 2 candelas.

They can easily say "no" and reject a suppliers' parts. It happens all the time, even when there is a hard deadline.

DeGiorgio is screwed. He signed off on something that he later testified that he had not approved. He was lazy and got caught. The supplier certainly shares some blame here, as they have more detailed specs for these small parts than you can imagine. The parts are supposed to be tested on the bench, in prototype vehicles, and in numerous environmental and stress jigs. Anybody that's stepped foot in the buildings at the Warren Tech center knows what I am talking about.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out those tests had been skipped for this part - and that will fall on DeGiorgio as well, since it is his responsibility to make sure those tests are performed and passed. If he signed off on tests that weren't performed... well, let's just say it's going to be a bad day for him.

Ah, so much like architecture the ego reigns supreme to the detriment of all


In some circles, yes. In this case, the engineer was lead for the Buick model she was working on, and took it to a political extreme. She didn't have the best interests of the company in mind (though plenty of engineers I knew at GM **DID** take pride in doing a good, thorough job).

GM saved a lot of money in deleting brands, but I felt they didn't go far enough, as there is still too much overlap. I'd prefer the GMC label restricted to commercial-grade trucks (Chevy covering consumer-grade trucks) and even eliminating Buick as an American-sold brand (keep them in Asia, where they make a ton of money for GM) and distinct lines for who carries what. Chevy should get the sports cars. Cadillac should stick to performance sedans and luxury cars. Putting the same car out, under 3 or 4 different badges is just dumb.
 
2014-04-01 01:00:23 PM  

SpectroBoy: More likely there was an atmosphere of "get it done" and "time is money" that creative an atmosphere that would inevitably lead to shortcuts.


Probably not.  Like the guy said above: GM engineers are egotistical jack-poles.  More likely he'd reject it because he got his jollies watching suppliers squirm.
 
2014-04-01 01:06:19 PM  

LesserEvil: Smeggy Smurf: LesserEvil: Smeggy Smurf: What's the odds he was told to approve them or find a new job?

About 0.

I've participated in the design process at GM, and the engineers there believe themselves to be the ultimate gods and arbitrators of everything that goes into the cars. I've seen a Buick engineer spend tens of thousands of dollars in engineering time (costing their suppliers, not GM), over lighting settings that at the end of the day, were exactly the same as the settings at the beginning of the day, because she believed she could see the difference in 2 candelas.

They can easily say "no" and reject a suppliers' parts. It happens all the time, even when there is a hard deadline.

DeGiorgio is screwed. He signed off on something that he later testified that he had not approved. He was lazy and got caught. The supplier certainly shares some blame here, as they have more detailed specs for these small parts than you can imagine. The parts are supposed to be tested on the bench, in prototype vehicles, and in numerous environmental and stress jigs. Anybody that's stepped foot in the buildings at the Warren Tech center knows what I am talking about.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out those tests had been skipped for this part - and that will fall on DeGiorgio as well, since it is his responsibility to make sure those tests are performed and passed. If he signed off on tests that weren't performed... well, let's just say it's going to be a bad day for him.

Ah, so much like architecture the ego reigns supreme to the detriment of all

In some circles, yes. In this case, the engineer was lead for the Buick model she was working on, and took it to a political extreme. She didn't have the best interests of the company in mind (though plenty of engineers I knew at GM **DID** take pride in doing a good, thorough job).

GM saved a lot of money in deleting brands, but I felt they didn't go far enough, as there is still too much overlap. I'd prefer the GMC label rest ...


I think they should've ditched Buick instead of Pontiac.
 
2014-04-01 01:09:15 PM  

Muta: Saiga410: All that is stated in the article was that he signed off on a change but he testified he did not sign off on a change in the tumbler mechinism.  I would love to see the change notice given by delphi to see if it stated the tumble mechanism or if the change notice was something innocuous like a a reduciton in the body or faceplate finish.

Suppliers make changes all the time without getting approval from engineering.  The tumble mechanism could have been black box to the switch assembly so no approval would have been required.


Obviously you've never undergone a GM (or any Big Three) certification process. GM put engineers in plants in China to certify how the electronics were made in the project I worked on. A Chinese engineer tried to subvert the process to save (and pocket himself) a few pennies per board, a change that resulted in lots of failures (60% intermittent, 20% DOAs). We caught it before it went to full production, and GM would have caught it as well (at least the engineering team we worked with). Several fired Chinese personnel and company (supplier) engineers permanently placed at the factories made sure we wouldn't have the issue again.

The part we made was a complex bit of hardware, and GM was involved in every phase. Even the plastic had to conform to rigid standards for color and materials. Everything was tested, including the force required to push a button or turn a knob (not unlike the ignition key), and GM had jigs to measure this. Parts that changed in materials or design have to undergo rigorous re-certification, which means being re-tested... unless the lead engineer is sloppy and lazy.
 
2014-04-01 01:14:06 PM  

MugzyBrown: He should be still insured under any E&O / D&O policy



The former since he's an employee and we're talking about an error & omission (and was neither a director nor an officer at the time).  However, for the policy to apply, the (vicarious) liability link between himself and the Company must remain since the "insured" for the purposes of the policy is the Company.  If the Company is no longer liable then the protection provided by the Company (including the insurance) won't be available.  In which case, that would leave him personally liable and reliant on his own liability (Homeowners & Umbrella) protection.
 
2014-04-01 01:19:00 PM  

Muta: Saiga410: All that is stated in the article was that he signed off on a change but he testified he did not sign off on a change in the tumbler mechinism.  I would love to see the change notice given by delphi to see if it stated the tumble mechanism or if the change notice was something innocuous like a a reduciton in the body or faceplate finish.

Suppliers make changes all the time without getting approval from engineering.  The tumble mechanism could have been black box to the switch assembly so no approval would have been required.


I have been personally burned by that scenario on more than one occasion.  There is at least one very large supplier for machine equipment that loves to pull stunts like that on a regular basis.
 
2014-04-01 01:22:32 PM  
cdn2.mixcrate.com
RIP Nick Papageorgio
 
2014-04-01 02:02:51 PM  

JK47: The former since he's an employee and we're talking about an error & omission (and was neither a director nor an officer at the time).  However, for the policy to apply, the (vicarious) liability link between himself and the Company must remain since the "insured" for the purposes of the policy is the Company.  If the Company is no longer liable then the protection provided by the Company (including the insurance) won't be available.  In which case, that would leave him personally liable and reliant on his own liability (Homeowners & Umbrella) protection.


A good E&O policy will have defined as insureds all past and current employees for their professional acts.

Here's one of my clients via a large international carrier:

"Insured" means:

2. your current or former principals, partners, executive officers, directors, stockholders, trustees or
employees while acting on your behalf and within the scope of their duties as such;

3. your current or former employees including leased personnel under your supervision, but only for acts
within the scope of their employment or lease agreement;

There should also be a severability clause, such as:

Except with respect to the Limit of Liability, and any rights or duties specifically assigned to you, this insurance
applies:

1. as if each "Named Insured" were the only "Named Insured", and

2 separately to each "Insured" against whom a "Professional Liability Claim" is made.


I referenced D&O incase there was a shareholder action against the company.  A national D&O carrier's form:

Insured Person means any Executive or Employee of an Organization acting either in his or her capacity as such or in an Outside Capacity.
 
2014-04-01 02:13:20 PM  

Muta: SpectroBoy: More likely there was an atmosphere of "get it done" and "time is money" that creative an atmosphere that would inevitably lead to shortcuts.

Probably not.  Like the guy said above: GM engineers are egotistical jack-poles.  More likely he'd reject it because he got his jollies watching suppliers squirm.


Maybe, if it suited him.  But if he knew rejecting it meant the line stopping, that would be incentive to accept it, if he thought it was OK.

Presumably he thought it was OK. "Not as good as you might like" may still be OK is your usual standards are very high.  In my industry we are infatuated with V-0 or 5VA flame ratings on many plastic parts where safety standards often call out lower-grade HB, V-1, or V-2 minimums.  I would sign off on a deviation in a second to use the lower grade for a limited time while we get our supplier to get us what we really want. That would mean on some components of a certain number of assemblies our stuff would only as good as....almost every other NRTL Listed product in the country.  If one of those units failed, for anything or reason, a person could argue "they ignored their own standards!", and they would be right, but that would not mean we acted irresponsibly.
 
2014-04-01 02:15:22 PM  
Lets just give up on GM already. The Corvette and Camaro are overrated. Suburbans/Yukon XL's/Escalades are purchased by women who really shouldn't be driving them. Their economy models are only good as rental cars. Cadillac should be put down.
If corporations are truly people, and that "person" knowingly killed someone, then that's murder. Murders typically aren't allowed to exist in society.
 
2014-04-01 02:27:15 PM  

LesserEvil: Obviously you've never undergone a GM (or any Big Three) certification process.


No I haven't.  I was involved with a Big 3 during 2008-09 when half the suppliers were going out of business.  During that period new suppliers had to be found, with the new supplier the part needed to be PPAP'ed for the first time in years.  It was pretty common to find the physical parts didn't match designs.  Suppliers were implementing running changes and not documenting the changes.
 
GBB
2014-04-01 02:30:42 PM  
"A General Motors engineer signed off on a design change for troubled ignition switches even though those changes did not meet company standards"

Company Standards:
1) Cheap as possible
2) Doesn't raise public suspicion for being shoddy and dangerous

Since the cheap, shoddy switch has been used since 2003-2004 and hadn't raised public suspicion, it met standards.
It's only now, when it became a huge thing, did it suddenly violate company standards.
 
2014-04-01 02:51:28 PM  
If this was a Japanese car company engineer he already would have done the honorable thing and committed seppuku
 
2014-04-01 02:58:15 PM  

Muta: Suppliers were implementing running changes and not documenting the changes.


Uggg.  I love running into those.  Hey lets try and see if we can get a better cost by resupplying.   WHY WONT THIS FIT!!!!!!...  WHY IS THIS BREAKING!!!!  I am glad I am currently involved with small production runs instead of the high volume jobs.
 
2014-04-01 03:48:54 PM  
Software SDLC has this problem solved, the engineer never has the last word, QA does.  They should follow that process, kind of mind boggling that they don't.  Or is there more?
 
2014-04-01 03:50:57 PM  
So this is the guy Michael Moore wants arrested, by SWAT if necessary, and executed?
 
2014-04-01 03:54:18 PM  

Saiga410: LesserEvil: Smeggy Smurf: What's the odds he was told to approve them or find a new job?

About 0.

I've participated in the design process at GM, and the engineers there believe themselves to be the ultimate gods and arbitrators of everything that goes into the cars. I've seen a Buick engineer spend tens of thousands of dollars in engineering time (costing their suppliers, not GM), over lighting settings that at the end of the day, were exactly the same as the settings at the beginning of the day, because she believed she could see the difference in 2 candelas.

They can easily say "no" and reject a suppliers' parts. It happens all the time, even when there is a hard deadline.

DeGiorgio is screwed. He signed off on something that he later testified that he had not approved. He was lazy and got caught. The supplier certainly shares some blame here, as they have more detailed specs for these small parts than you can imagine. The parts are supposed to be tested on the bench, in prototype vehicles, and in numerous environmental and stress jigs. Anybody that's stepped foot in the buildings at the Warren Tech center knows what I am talking about.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out those tests had been skipped for this part - and that will fall on DeGiorgio as well, since it is his responsibility to make sure those tests are performed and passed. If he signed off on tests that weren't performed... well, let's just say it's going to be a bad day for him.

All that is stated in the article was that he signed off on a change but he testified he did not sign off on a change in the tumbler mechinism.  I would love to see the change notice given by delphi to see if it stated the tumble mechanism or if the change notice was something innocuous like a a reduciton in the body or faceplate finish.


What fascinates me is there are two versions of the switch with the same exact part number. One version kills people and the other doesn't. That would probably indicate a change of part number was needed. Hmmmm. I wonder why the part number wasn't changed when the part design was changed.
 
2014-04-01 03:54:53 PM  

bhcompy: If this was a Japanese car company engineer he already would have done the honorable thing and committed seppuku


Or denied anything was ever wrong to avoid losing face thus getting us into a shooting war with Japan to take out their nukes
 
2014-04-01 04:02:05 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: What fascinates me is there are two versions of the switch with the same exact part number. One version kills people and the other doesn't. That would probably indicate a change of part number was needed. Hmmmm. I wonder why the part number wasn't changed when the part design was changed.


In my experience PNs do not change unless a fit form or functional change.  If the change is a drop in replacement then you utilize the original pn with a change break.  Now going forward a new pn should be issued and corrective notice on the service books need to be published.  I would feel  better to guarantee the excising of all possible sources of a bad part entring service after a recall.  Not sure on GMs SOP.
 
2014-04-01 04:04:28 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: bhcompy: If this was a Japanese car company engineer he already would have done the honorable thing and committed seppuku

Or denied anything was ever wrong to avoid losing face thus getting us into a shooting war with Japan to take out their nukes


Having worked with Japanese engineers, this is the more likely scenario. They are extremely arrogant and their first reaction tends to be "it's not our fault". It took me 6 months to get the engineers at the company I did work for to change, and when they did, it was revolutionary to them. The idea that they could accept they might be to blame, and investigate the causes, would actually give them a favorable reputation was quite the revelation. Of course, most of the time, blame directed at them was not their fault, which only reinforced their reputation for quality, and the few times it was their fault, gave them ample time to correct the issues and still made them look good to the GM production team.

Toyota engineers were arrogant to the point of denying any sort of blame, even when it stared them in the face. I theorized the "stuck gas pedal" issue was related to poorly written network command buffering code, and still believe that is the case. My theory was later supported by some engineers who spent considerable time investigating it. The Japanese tended not to believe in the value of FEMAs, other than their obvious burden of paperwork and busywork for engineers who had by-their-seats coding to do.
 
2014-04-01 04:14:38 PM  
I understand, I'm a scapegoat, not an actual goat.
 
2014-04-01 04:32:09 PM  
heehhhh..  A lot folks have an overly rosy view of how the GM supply chain works and how they treat their suppliers. Only a few on here get it.

I'll leave this here :

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/GM_Ignition_Validati on .pdf

 I have also been told GM signed off on the PPAP.. so..

GM owns this...

 / Been in the GM supply chain for over 10 years at a Teir (not Delphi in the interest of full disclosure )
// Nothing has changed since the bailout
/// Assholes.. each and every one of them. It's laughable to hear one of their program readiness people going off like they are some kind of God on a con call.. ooooo.. what a big man you are !!!

PS, rest assured Delphi will take the blame for this.. GM will strong arm the fark out of them to fall on the sword or lose future business..
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report