Did anything good ever come from GM?

I think most people will agree that the Detroit area is not the happiest place on earth right now. There seems to be bad news coming all the time and no, I am not talking about the Lions! It has almost become fashionable to take shots at Detroit and the U.S. auto companies that reside there. Yes, some of the criticisms are justified. There were bad management decisions; bad union contracts; wastes and inefficiencies; and yes, political corruptions. The list could go on. I may not be qualified to discuss the issues of Detroit itself (even though I certainly have my own opinions!). I am, however, qualified to say that a lot of the automation technology used today was developed by and for the U.S. automotive companies, specifically by GM. I know this because I was a GM employee for 25 years.

When I have talked to people who have had a lot of criticisms of the GM cars and trucks, I often found that (s)he had not driven nor even been in a GM vehicle for at least five to ten years and sometimes longer. The criticisms came from some bad experiences personally, but more times than not, it was from hearing the bad experiences of friends and acquaintances. Wow, what a perception problem GM has to overcome! Now, I know that these criticisms were earned over the years, but I think the products from the past few years deserve a 2nd look without people propagating the old opinions without fresh inputs.

I am not a product guy so I can’t say too much about the technologies in the vehicles, but the innovations and advanced technologies used in these vehicles are so exciting! Consumers don’t have to worry about how these things work and how to use them in the vehicles. They are presented in the forms of safety, comfort, functionality, ease of use…. These are real engineering marvels, if I may say so myself! Many of today’s technologies and innovations in manufacturing automation areas were either driven by or first adopted in large-scale production use by GM and other U.S. automotive companies. For most automation suppliers, the PLC is the key product in the business! Did you know that the first wide-adoption of the PLC in manufacturing operations was by GM Powertrain (it was called Hydra-Matic at that time) operation in Ypsilanti. That adoption literally launched a whole new industry!

Secondly, one may think Manufacturing Automation Protocol (MAP) was a failure since it never reached the goal of becoming the common communication network and protocol that links all components of automated equipment together. That may be true, however, the use of networks in manufacturing with different applications such as peer-to-peer communication, controls to IT system integration, safety networks, device networks, etc. all were derived or initiated from the MAP efforts. Today, it is hard to imagine a production line without network connectivity or even a low-automation line with many manual stations!

My favorite technology topic is Open Architecture Controller versus the PC-based controller. They certainly are controversial in the sense that there are people who have strong opinions on whether they should be used in a manufacturing environment. I always believed that an open architecture controller is not the same as a PC-based controller, and we can probably spend the next two hours discussing the differences. Whatever your view is regarding these two items, they brought the concept of inter-operability to reality on the factory floor. They bring the “openness” of operator interfaces and ease of network connectivity to manufacturing lines. The popularity of using Ethernet-based technologies in manufacturing is the result of the adoption of PCs and the availability of low cost Ethernet connectivity options. Of course GM together with other large end-user companies has the main driving force behind the use of these technologies through the OMAC Users Group.

Let’s look at Windows operating system and PC platforms in manufacturing. Was that a good thing? Was it a failure? I am sure we can debate this for a long time. There were several factors such as information security concerns and operating system updates that made the use of PCs on the plant floor not as beneficial as first envisioned. However, I will say proper use of PCs and the implementation of open system concept enabled great advances in manufacturing automation. That discussion will be something for another blog in the near future.

Vision systems in the vehicle assembly lines, vision guided robotic systems for windshield insertion and stud-welding, full-body gauging systems, paint defect detection systems, panel defect detection systems using light diffraction, modular control, artificial intelligence and knowledge-based systems, flexible fixtures, manufacturing line simulation, ultrasonic gap detection systems, etc. are many of the technology application examples. These are just some of the applications that I was personally involved with over the years. Some were very successful, others not so much from both the technology implementation and application usefulness standpoint. GM at that time was a company striving to be innovative, willing to take risks, willing to provide its engineering teams the freedom and opportunities to use new concepts and technologies, in short, a Company taking bold steps towards being the leader! Some of the risk taking and being the “guineas pig” did not result in direct benefits to GM, however, the contributions to industry from these efforts were invaluable! Maybe that is one of the key factors for GM’s problems right now: it has not taken advantages the many good things it has done over the years itself.

As I follow what is happening at GM closely, I have great confidence in the future success of the company! GM was a very good company and it will be a great company again! It is an opportunity to correct some of the mistakes; and with the tradition of innovation and the mindset of being the best, GM will be better than ever! Of course many of my friends are still there, and I know how innovative and smart they are, and there are many like them in the company.