09/01:
Category: General
Posted by: Malcolm Duffield
I sit here writing this in air-conditioned comfort whilst outside it is 41 degrees Centigrade - and this is the fourth or fifth 40+ day we've had this year (it is the 10th of January!). Whilst I think it is safe to say that all but the most stupid/ignorant/self-interested folk now accept that global warming is a reality, and is a product of mankinds own making, it struck me that we really aren't doing much about fixing it. Yet. At the same time, I read with interest (because at heart I am very much a petrolhead - or rather 'car-nut') that almost all of the world's established car manufacturers are announcing yet more powerful models (i.e. more power, more fossil fuel consumed, more CO2 produced - there are some laws of Physics involved here - and yes, I know BMW and Mercedes get more power for less fuel/CO2 - but they could just as easily go for same power and even less fuel consumed/CO2 produced).
Who is driving this 'arms-race' of power increase (and all too often accompanying weight increase) that seems to effect every class of car? Is it customers writing in demanding more "grunt"? (I don't think so) Market research surveys? (Nah). The car magazines with their sometimes adolescent fixation on acceleration? No, not even them. The reality is that the car industry itself simply can't change - it's stuck in a groove (or rather, a rut) that it climbed into in the early 20th Century, a time when the first cars likely did need more power than they had in order to power the bodywork and suspension structures necessary to cosset and protect the occupants (and to carry the odd pig or two to market) at a pace fast enough to make it worth driving rather than taking the train. So, for almost all folk in the car industry, more (power) = progress. The reality is that cars have, since the late 60's and early 70's had pretty much enough power to get the job done - to cruise effortlessly at the speed limit and be able to handle the roads as they have been built. The speed limit itself has little to do with the cars abilities anyway, it is the (lowest common denominator) driver's skill limitations that set the safe speed - more power would make no difference to those limits (rather it would just punishes breaches of them all the more harshly).
The car industry is stuck in a rut? You bet. And for a very compelling reason - they are expert! They are expert in the internal combustion motor and all of the periphery that its use engenders. They - and it's a big they when you factor in all of the people who's 'expertise' is in this technology: engineers; designers; manufacturers; maintenance mechanics; oil companies; motoring journalists; car sales staff; etc. would, in order to escape the rut, have to forego at least some of their status as expert if they were to 'reject' the internal combustion engine. The mere act of not making 'more power' would, to many of these experts, be disloyal to their creed, their engineer forebears who established this rut all of those years ago
I cite this example as the root of the problem we face in moving to environmentally friendly motor vehicles is the same root cause that prevents many change projects from succeeding - the informal but nevertheless rigid structures that are created by hierarchies of expertise are very well positioned to resist change, and they can only see change as a threat to their position and power in (and of) that hierarchy. Thus, to succeed in bringing change - you must acknowledge that hierarchy, and assist it to transform and serve the new project.
Who is driving this 'arms-race' of power increase (and all too often accompanying weight increase) that seems to effect every class of car? Is it customers writing in demanding more "grunt"? (I don't think so) Market research surveys? (Nah). The car magazines with their sometimes adolescent fixation on acceleration? No, not even them. The reality is that the car industry itself simply can't change - it's stuck in a groove (or rather, a rut) that it climbed into in the early 20th Century, a time when the first cars likely did need more power than they had in order to power the bodywork and suspension structures necessary to cosset and protect the occupants (and to carry the odd pig or two to market) at a pace fast enough to make it worth driving rather than taking the train. So, for almost all folk in the car industry, more (power) = progress. The reality is that cars have, since the late 60's and early 70's had pretty much enough power to get the job done - to cruise effortlessly at the speed limit and be able to handle the roads as they have been built. The speed limit itself has little to do with the cars abilities anyway, it is the (lowest common denominator) driver's skill limitations that set the safe speed - more power would make no difference to those limits (rather it would just punishes breaches of them all the more harshly).
The car industry is stuck in a rut? You bet. And for a very compelling reason - they are expert! They are expert in the internal combustion motor and all of the periphery that its use engenders. They - and it's a big they when you factor in all of the people who's 'expertise' is in this technology: engineers; designers; manufacturers; maintenance mechanics; oil companies; motoring journalists; car sales staff; etc. would, in order to escape the rut, have to forego at least some of their status as expert if they were to 'reject' the internal combustion engine. The mere act of not making 'more power' would, to many of these experts, be disloyal to their creed, their engineer forebears who established this rut all of those years ago
I cite this example as the root of the problem we face in moving to environmentally friendly motor vehicles is the same root cause that prevents many change projects from succeeding - the informal but nevertheless rigid structures that are created by hierarchies of expertise are very well positioned to resist change, and they can only see change as a threat to their position and power in (and of) that hierarchy. Thus, to succeed in bringing change - you must acknowledge that hierarchy, and assist it to transform and serve the new project.