The GE problem is damn the experience and knowledge of the old hands. The main problem is bringing in fresh college kids with NO experience to run the show. Their only concern is moving up the ladder as fast as possible. I'll go back years ago as an example. We had a fresh operations leader right out of college. He wanted higher production numbers. He wouldn't listen to us trying to explain why we were grinding the buckets at a certain feed and speed. We were told to crank it up or else. So we did. Production numbers went through the roof and he was a hero. Then the buckets started failing. Running the machines at maximum feed and speed was making the material too hard and brittle so the product started cracking, chipping etc. Hero to zero he went. He was simply moved to another department in the same position! The older engineers were called in to investigate. They showed him why there would be failure at those feeds and speeds and this was discovered years and years ago and that is why we were running at established speeds. By our methods! This example is why our shop can never settle down in a Groove. New and inexperienced guys and gals coming in and trying to impress to quickly move up the ladder has to stop. This kind of stuff happens so much I can't even begin to tell you how many times this crap happens. It must stop! Most of us machinist on the shop floor may not have a college education but we are professionals when it comes to making gas turbine parts. GE must go back to experience over young college kids. We need young men and women coming into GE. We welcome them. Just not to lead until they are ready and understand the process and not be too arrogant or embarrassed to ask questions. GE Gas Turbines
10 replies (most recent on top)
With technology and tooling constantly changing and improving you usually can't rely on engineers to oversee the process changes. They just don't get deep enough into the process on a daily basis to know what they are doing. Of course there are exceptions but few. Maybe they are just lazy or to busy to get their hands dirty.
The problem is CAS, seriously how can an Auditor challenge a senior executive when he knows that it is the same guy who is going to recruit him few months later? the only things they find is always about Rev Rec, whenever there are findings about stinky projects (cost and margin) it goes under the rug (they need to stay nice but find some kind of issues to prove they are doing something). EB position after 4 years of PPT and Excel is killing and will kill GE for sure.
Sincerely i am not being a hater,I actually dont envy them at all and I do think they will never be able to change company cause no other company will give them such a position with such benefits and if they do, they will kick them out first or second quarter (they will be no BS).
Analysts in the street dont see this, I think if they did the stock would be at $9 max cause they will understand it is not just top level management issue, but this people all over the layers of the company
svv- what babbling bull are you writing here. Why don't you get an education to improve your language skill.
The training these kids are getting consists of long lists of e learning with total page length that guarantees they (or any other human) cannot not remember much. Showed examples to a friend who is a cognitive psychologist (PhD). They will be lucky to retain 50% of what they read and cannot actually read all the info in time allotted
Look where our current management with experience got GE. Seems like we could use new managers, experienced or not. If we hire crappy new workers, half of the problem is the crappy manager that interviewed them. All college kids are not arrogant. I am a millennial that always walks the floor and talks with the shop guys to better understand product issues. Do you see the crappy manager promoting me? Instead they go find someone worse to hire. So who's really at fault?
One of those older engineers should have the ones to review the process change. Another question is if this critical information was known and proven through test years ago, was it documented in either the design practices. Just saying.
Reviewing and signing off on a change in a mfg plan should not be insufficient if the reviewer has the experience or has enough sense to ask others. Change in grinding feeds and it's impact has been a lesson learned at Aviation and Power. Unfortunately, we see too many teams not asking others, reviewing lessons learned (DPs for example) or simply using some common sense. It is not just based on inexperience but there is a silo culture that seems to foster it.
Relying on signoffs is insufficient. If you don't know that, then you are part of the problem. Half the time, the people signing off are to busy to take a close look or are clueless themselves. Why do I bother trying to explain the folly of getting rid of your experienced people? They are carrying your company.
Spot on. But that's just one example. This is an epidemic in aviation as well. These kids are killing us. They should be doing 5 year apprenticeships out of college until they actually have something to contribute. It's a running joke around the shop that coaches and business leaders/omlp types know absolutely ZERO. Must be doing lobotomies in the leadership course. What a joke. Major HR failure and upper management failure.
I am surprised that the change in feeds and speeds were changed in what is suppose to be a frozen process plan. Changing that plan normally requires a review and sign off. Someone experienced in Manufacturing Planning or Manufacturing Engineering should have caught this, as you had already done so.