3 ms·

I think as with everything, it depends on what end of the spectrum your company is at. There are a lot companies, Volkswagen to name a prominent example, that

I think as with everything, it depends on what end of the spectrum your company is at. There are a lot companies, Volkswagen to name a prominent example, that have over time built up massive management layers that don't ultimately serve the company goals. Getting rid of excess is something that is necessary because they have ballooned to expensive and unhealthy proportions. Having none at all or too little obviously also has downsides.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Manufacturing is all about management though, isn't it? Management is the make or break in that industry. Sure you can coast with your current setup, but that isn't enough for an auto company long term. You need to manage your PLM (product life cycle CAD/design software) integrated to your EBOM (engineering bill of materials) to your MBOM (manufacturing bill of materials) to support your ERP (enterprise resource planning) in support of your MRP (manufacturing resource planning). All of that requires people at higher levels that understand the systems at the conceptual level and the company specific level, working together to make sure that 40,000 parts manufactured in house and purchased externally, all with varying lead times, come together at the exact right time to build the correct model/configuration for the market right now. I've seen plenty of companies making bank today but that were doomed because they no longer did any of the above, they fired management, they outsourced design, they outsourced IT, they coasted on prior managers work in setting/configuring everything and it all became fixed in place as is. Best they could hope for was to bring in consultants to heavy lift changes as part of 'major' efforts going forward, allowing what managers would have been continually adapting to pill up until it became such a big issue money was freed up for the consultants.
- mschild 2y ago
  Again, that's generally fine and correct, but when you have 2 separate departments that do almost the identical job, it's time to question whether or not that 2nd department is needed. My argument wasn't that most management wasn't necessary. Especially for something as complex as modern cars, there is a need for organizing and managing the whole process correctly. What companies like VW suffer from is too much management. I've worked for one of their sub-brands. It was not a rare sight to see that there were individual contributors that had more than 1 manager while working on a single project. It made no sense from any conceivable standpoint. The movie Office Space comes to mind. The main problem I saw while working there was that to be considered successful, and get corresponding salary adjustments and promotions, managers increased their head count by any means necessary. That included hiring and promoting more managers who's sole goal was to increase it even further. There came a point where my team had 3 managers at once, all on a different career level, but all responsible for only my team. Division Lead (responsible only for Team X) -> Sub-division Lead (responsible only for Team X) -> Team Lead (responsible only for Team X) -> Team X. That structure made no sense.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    I see what you are saying. Companies where managers build kingdoms for zero business reason are pretty bad, especially when you are a manager that doesn't play those sorts of games. Was your project seen as quasi make or break? I've been places where that structure made sense in that context. Division lead is mainly full time liason to the board in order to keep them comfortable with the project, sales planning, forecasts, etc. There's a lot of invisible at the team level stuff that can go on up there. Subdivision lead is to smooth the projects interactions/needs with other functional areas of the company, and team lead to actually keep the project on track internally. I saw things from the other side but just from site visits. We implemented the same software and our management actually invested in our staff and flew us all over to see how others implemented things/their processes/etc. Did site visits to an auto company where they had outsourced everything to TATA. At this point there is zero reason that brand exists, it doesn't bring anything over anyone else, not much institutional knowledge (or care for that matter) and basically treating their business like a franchise where any old body could step in, and not a specialized institution where the employees actually added/had internal value. One McDonalds franchise is the same as the next, but seeing your auto company that way you are dead long term.
    - mschild 2y ago
      Our project wasn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. Certainly not enough to justify 3 managers for it. I remember carefully asking my team manager why the structure was the way it was and her answer was to simply shrug her shoulders. I see your point about keeping all level of stakeholders aligned and interested in the project. Considering our project size though, and the fact that it was considered a permanent development project anyway, I don't see a reason why the managers should only be responsible for a single team. They had plenty of time to take over that stakeholder management for multiple teams.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

Manufacturing is all about management though, isn't it? Management is the make or break in that industry. Sure you can coast with your current setup, but that isn't enough for an auto company long term. You need to manage your PLM (product life cycle CAD/design software) integrated to your EBOM (engineering bill of materials) to your MBOM (manufacturing bill of materials) to support your ERP (enterprise resource planning) in support of your MRP (manufacturing resource planning). All of that requires people at higher levels that understand the systems at the conceptual level and the company specific level, working together to make sure that 40,000 parts manufactured in house and purchased externally, all with varying lead times, come together at the exact right time to build the correct model/configuration for the market right now. I've seen plenty of companies making bank today but that were doomed because they no longer did any of the above, they fired management, they outsourced design, they outsourced IT, they coasted on prior managers work in setting/configuring everything and it all became fixed in place as is. Best they could hope for was to bring in consultants to heavy lift changes as part of 'major' efforts going forward, allowing what managers would have been continually adapting to pill up until it became such a big issue money was freed up for the consultants.

mschild 2y ago
Again, that's generally fine and correct, but when you have 2 separate departments that do almost the identical job, it's time to question whether or not that 2nd department is needed. My argument wasn't that most management wasn't necessary. Especially for something as complex as modern cars, there is a need for organizing and managing the whole process correctly. What companies like VW suffer from is too much management. I've worked for one of their sub-brands. It was not a rare sight to see that there were individual contributors that had more than 1 manager while working on a single project. It made no sense from any conceivable standpoint. The movie Office Space comes to mind. The main problem I saw while working there was that to be considered successful, and get corresponding salary adjustments and promotions, managers increased their head count by any means necessary. That included hiring and promoting more managers who's sole goal was to increase it even further. There came a point where my team had 3 managers at once, all on a different career level, but all responsible for only my team. Division Lead (responsible only for Team X) -> Sub-division Lead (responsible only for Team X) -> Team Lead (responsible only for Team X) -> Team X. That structure made no sense.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  I see what you are saying. Companies where managers build kingdoms for zero business reason are pretty bad, especially when you are a manager that doesn't play those sorts of games. Was your project seen as quasi make or break? I've been places where that structure made sense in that context. Division lead is mainly full time liason to the board in order to keep them comfortable with the project, sales planning, forecasts, etc. There's a lot of invisible at the team level stuff that can go on up there. Subdivision lead is to smooth the projects interactions/needs with other functional areas of the company, and team lead to actually keep the project on track internally. I saw things from the other side but just from site visits. We implemented the same software and our management actually invested in our staff and flew us all over to see how others implemented things/their processes/etc. Did site visits to an auto company where they had outsourced everything to TATA. At this point there is zero reason that brand exists, it doesn't bring anything over anyone else, not much institutional knowledge (or care for that matter) and basically treating their business like a franchise where any old body could step in, and not a specialized institution where the employees actually added/had internal value. One McDonalds franchise is the same as the next, but seeing your auto company that way you are dead long term.
  - mschild 2y ago
    Our project wasn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. Certainly not enough to justify 3 managers for it. I remember carefully asking my team manager why the structure was the way it was and her answer was to simply shrug her shoulders. I see your point about keeping all level of stakeholders aligned and interested in the project. Considering our project size though, and the fact that it was considered a permanent development project anyway, I don't see a reason why the managers should only be responsible for a single team. They had plenty of time to take over that stakeholder management for multiple teams.