Project Drive- Thoughts...

demoncase · 26th November 2011, 10:04

Having read Reebs excellent guide on here regarding the incremental changes that Project Drive inflicted on the 75, I had a question that seems rather relevant, particularly as I've just spent an hour or so fitting a walnut dash to Parsely:

Considering the overwhelming majority of changes seemed to pretty tupenny-hapenny, does anyone know exactly how much time/money that the cumulation of Project Drive actually saved?... I mean, deleting little rubber caps on the seatbelt bolts? That's probably cost more in manager's time, sitting around gazing vacantly at the powerpoint presentation to decide on it than the tiny saving it actually made

Clearly it wasn't enough, consider MGR's ultimate fate, but I just wondered if anyone knew?

pab · 26th November 2011, 10:31

A question that I have thought of many times.You mention seat belt bolt covers at perhaps 10P to produce,then make a calculation and multiply this a million times.

Project drive existed on all Rover cars of this era too..

tsautos · 26th November 2011, 11:19

It's not so much the parts they were concerned with, but the actual fitting of those parts reduce the time to fit parts on line and you can lose manpower so the price of build verses manpower reduces.
It's all figures to please the hierarchy, they called it de_manning and meant everyone's time quota to do a process was scrutinised to the last second.
They de-manned on a regular basis but never actually made anyone redundant through de-manning unless through natural loss or voluntary means.

Tim_Burgess · 26th November 2011, 13:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by pab

A question that I have thought of many times.You mention seat belt bolt covers at perhaps 10P to produce,then make a calculation and multiply this a million times.

Project drive existed on all Rover cars of this era too..

Having heard stories of what was deleted from 25 / 45 I think the 75 got off lightly. The carpet in our 2001 MGF (replaced now) was utter rubbish compared to the one in our neighbours 1997 car.

Is it true that later 25/ZRs lost components such as wheelarch liners and rustproofing was cut back? Absolutely atrocious if it is.

simdel1 · 26th November 2011, 13:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim_Burgess

...and rustproofing was cut back?

Optimised

Dashiel · 26th November 2011, 16:23

Project Drive was the last desperate flailing of the Phoenix 4. It probably didn't save much at all, but was probably a cosmetic exercise to try and convince suitors from abroad that Longbridge was worth saving and MG Rover was a serious concern. Just goes to show how devoid of ideas they were. When management has no ideas, they always fall back on accounting tricks to flatter themselves.

Kearton · 26th November 2011, 18:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dashiel

Project Drive was the last desperate flailing of the Phoenix 4. It probably didn't save much at all, but was probably a cosmetic exercise to try and convince suitors from abroad that Longbridge was worth saving and MG Rover was a serious concern. Just goes to show how devoid of ideas they were. When management has no ideas, they always fall back on accounting tricks to flatter themselves.

I'm not sure that it was a "last desperate fling".

As I understand it Project Drive started almost as soon as Phoenix took over MGR. Some form of product optimisation / refinement will be going on continuously in all companies. I'd go as far as to say that in its past BL didn't do enough this. They became much better at it in the Honda years. In MGR's case some of it does make sense, e.g. replacing the three warning stickers on the 75/ZT's bonnet shut with one combined sticker, although in general it does seem to have been a case of removing less obvious parts to reduce cost in the hope that the perceived product quality isn't reduced, rather than replacing then with parts that are:- better engineered, easier & cheaper to manufacture, more reliable or more functional.

Regards,
Kearton

simdel1 · 26th November 2011, 18:24

Quote:

Some form of product optimisation / refinement will be going on continuously in all companies.

Very true. Many manufacturing companies have 'cost optimisation' teams who's job it is to find opportunities to reduce costs without impacting perceived (and actual) quality.

Martin75 · 26th November 2011, 19:35

Like all production run savings, the cost of the revision needed a set number of production cars to reach the law of increasing return.

Very often such 'events' are angled more at satisfying creditors and bankers as a justification for liquidity, than achievement of increased profitability.

In review, rarely do the architect's of such schemes considerer the detraction of appeal. Accountants rarely share the designers eye.

In short savings can be represented mathematically, desire - lacks such immediate identity.

In mitigation, it could have been the fleet market beckoned, where such 'luxuries' are sacrificed for the leasing cost reduction; satisfying the aspirations of middle management appetite for 'Badge' appeal.

In both cases an exercise in needles parsimony. Production ceased so quickly thereafter, it's hard to see the set up factors being satisfied.

Perhaps other conniptions, closer to the few who knew the future, connived to reduce the 75's splendour?

Dashiel · 26th November 2011, 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kearton

I'm not sure that it was a "last desperate fling".

As I understand it Project Drive started almost as soon as Phoenix took over MGR. Some form of product optimisation / refinement will be going on continuously in all companies. I'd go as far as to say that in its past BL didn't do enough this. They became much better at it in the Honda years. In MGR's case some of it does make sense, e.g. replacing the three warning stickers on the 75/ZT's bonnet shut with one combined sticker, although in general it does seem to have been a case of removing less obvious parts to reduce cost in the hope that the perceived product quality isn't reduced, rather than replacing then with parts that are:- better engineered, easier & cheaper to manufacture, more reliable or more functional.

Regards,
Kearton

The 4 bought Rover for £10. Yes £10.
It was bleeding so much money the press were speculating that it could even bring down BMW. It was losing market share. With the exception of the 75 everyone of its products was badly out of date. It had a bad image with the public.

Reducing the bonnet stickers from 3 to 1 was not going to save Rover.
Or any of the other stunts like removing the antirollbar or undertray from the 75. The company was losing hundreds of millions each year.

It would however help when the Phoenix 4 went to the government (or whoever) and asked for a loan, and the government asked them what they were doing to turn the company around. They could talk about the grand sounding 'Project Drive' and how they were reducing costs wherever possible. To the gullible, this could be enough to persuade them to lend Rover money.

26th November 2011, 10:04	#1
demoncase Avid contributor Ford Mondeo TDDCi 2.0 130hp Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Wolverhampton Posts: 204 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Project Drive- Thoughts... Having read Reebs excellent guide on here regarding the incremental changes that Project Drive inflicted on the 75, I had a question that seems rather relevant, particularly as I've just spent an hour or so fitting a walnut dash to Parsely: Considering the overwhelming majority of changes seemed to pretty tupenny-hapenny, does anyone know exactly how much time/money that the cumulation of Project Drive actually saved?... I mean, deleting little rubber caps on the seatbelt bolts? That's probably cost more in manager's time, sitting around gazing vacantly at the powerpoint presentation to decide on it than the tiny saving it actually made Clearly it wasn't enough, consider MGR's ultimate fate, but I just wondered if anyone knew? __________________ Nothing in his pockets except knives and lint....

26th November 2011, 10:31	#2
pab Banned MG ZT V6 190+ Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Leeds Posts: 33,223 Thanks: 41 Thanked 1,614 Times in 1,416 Posts	A question that I have thought of many times.You mention seat belt bolt covers at perhaps 10P to produce,then make a calculation and multiply this a million times. Project drive existed on all Rover cars of this era too..

26th November 2011, 11:19	#3
tsautos Loves to post MG EXPRESS Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: STOURBRIDGE Posts: 439 Thanks: 0 Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts	It's not so much the parts they were concerned with, but the actual fitting of those parts reduce the time to fit parts on line and you can lose manpower so the price of build verses manpower reduces. It's all figures to please the hierarchy, they called it de_manning and meant everyone's time quota to do a process was scrutinised to the last second. They de-manned on a regular basis but never actually made anyone redundant through de-manning unless through natural loss or voluntary means.

26th November 2011, 16:23	#6
Dashiel Posted a thing or two Rover 75 V6 2.0 Club Tourer LPG Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: South East Posts: 1,405 Thanks: 3 Thanked 39 Times in 34 Posts	Project Drive was the last desperate flailing of the Phoenix 4. It probably didn't save much at all, but was probably a cosmetic exercise to try and convince suitors from abroad that Longbridge was worth saving and MG Rover was a serious concern. Just goes to show how devoid of ideas they were. When management has no ideas, they always fall back on accounting tricks to flatter themselves.

26th November 2011, 19:35	#9
Martin75 Loves to post Rover 75 CDti Auto Saloon 2004 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: North Essex Coast Posts: 489 Thanks: 4 Thanked 5 Times in 1 Post	Like all production run savings, the cost of the revision needed a set number of production cars to reach the law of increasing return. Very often such 'events' are angled more at satisfying creditors and bankers as a justification for liquidity, than achievement of increased profitability. In review, rarely do the architect's of such schemes considerer the detraction of appeal. Accountants rarely share the designers eye. In short savings can be represented mathematically, desire - lacks such immediate identity. In mitigation, it could have been the fleet market beckoned, where such 'luxuries' are sacrificed for the leasing cost reduction; satisfying the aspirations of middle management appetite for 'Badge' appeal. In both cases an exercise in needles parsimony. Production ceased so quickly thereafter, it's hard to see the set up factors being satisfied. Perhaps other conniptions, closer to the few who knew the future, connived to reduce the 75's splendour?