THE AIM for this post is to bring to your attention the ongoing troubles that Ford has with the quality of their products. This has been a problem for the venerable auto manufacturer since the early days of the 1980s when Dr. Deming first consulted to their executive leadership on how to improve their operations. At issue in the news clip above is the experience of a loyal Ford customer of 25 years whose 2024 F-150 has had to have its engine replaced three times owing to catastrophic failure, with the third time almost resulting in a head-on collision with the customer’s 7yo son in the vehicle.
At the time Deming started working with Ford’s leadership, they were introducing their new advertising campaign some may remember: “Ford: Quality is Job 1”. A story from the time goes that Dr. Deming was watching a huge banner being unveilled at Ford’s headquarters with the new slogan and he laughed and laughed.
Of course, we know that Deming was laughing as he knew from long experience helping the Japanese that quality didn’t happen because of words on a banner pronouncing it: it comes from deliberate work on transforming management and the systems and processes they are responsible for. We see this come through in Point #10 of his 14 Points for the transformation of management:
10. Eliminate numerical goals, slogans, and posters imploring people to do better. Instead, display accomplishments of the management in respect to assistance to employees to improve their performance. People need information about what the management is doing on these 14 points.
Deming, W. Edwards. Out of the Crisis (The MIT Press) (p. 202). The MIT Press. Kindle Edition.
Dr. Deming’s definition of quality was that of a product that helps someone and enjoys a good and sustainable market. In my coaching, I augment that with the following, inspired by conversations I’ve had with Dr. Bill Bellows:
Quality in a product or service can also be understood as the intersection of how well its parts fit together and how well they work together in service of the customer’s needs. It is entirely possible to create a high quality product that serves no customer need.
What did the Customer do?
At all times, their first point of contact was with the dealership, however, after the third catastrophic failure that created billows of white smoke obscuring their vision and almost resulting in a head-on collision, they escalated to speak with executive leadership to get the problem rectified. They believed their standing as a loyal 25-year Ford customer would get appropriate attention. Instead, they were rebuffed.
What did Management do?
As shown in the news story, executive leadership didn’t respond to the customer, who then decided to get local media involved. Their initial reaction was to put yet another engine into the same vehicle, but then relented to get the customer into a new vehicle, but with a new lease instead of honouring his existing one — for a faulty vehicle.
Now the story of Ford’s “quality” on one of its flagship products is on full display. And as we learn in the news story, this isn’t an isolated case: others have been similarly affected.
What should Management do?
Given that three consecutive engines and turbochargers failed, its obvious the problems are in Ford’s manufacturing system and all the processes that feed into them. Workers cannot compensate for flaws built into that system by top-management. An investigation into all of them needs to happen, going straight to the top: Were cheaper parts purchased? Was it due to inadequate tooling? Overworking staff? Poor design decisions mandated by leadership? Corners cut to make the quarterly dividend look good?
And at the very least, leadership should apologize to the customer and offer to either break the lease and refund their payments or a new vehicle at employee pricing.
At stake is Ford’s reputation. That this veteran customer is willing to stick to Ford products after three failures, the last of which nearly killed him and his young son who was in the truck at the time, is a testament to their blind faith. Think of how many potential customers Ford has lost just on this story alone!
As Dr. Deming notes in Out of the Crisis:
The cost of rework is only part of the cost of poor quality. Poor quality begets poor quality and lowers productivity all along the line, and some of the faulty product goes out the door, into the hands of the customer. An unhappy customer tells his friends. The multiplying effect of an unhappy customer is one of those unknown and unknowable figures, and likewise for the multiplying effect of a happy customer, who brings in business.
Deming, W. Edwards. Out of the Crisis (The MIT Press) (p. 12). The MIT Press. Kindle Edition.
What would you do?
Put yourself in the shoes of a management consultant who has been invited to speak to the top-leadership of Ford Canada. They understand that you have some insights that could help improve their quality and are eager to hear them. What would you suggest? What would you recommend leadership do to rectify the loyal customer’s problem?
What do you think about Dr. Deming’s definition of quality? My own? How do you define quality in a way that communicates it is a system outcome rather than an individual outcome?
Let me know in the comments below.