edusaab
29-11-04, 05:32 AM
Autonews.com make an interview with the President of GM.....
this is a part of the interview....
"""""""What's the vision for Saab? It seems like an underperformer.
It has been an underperformer. I think the primary reason is that the business model didn't work on three counts. The basic business structure - producing and having most of your costs footprinted in Sweden and, to a certain extent, Germany with the supply base - and having 40 to 50 percent of the volume in the U.S. is tough to make work with the exchange rates. So a little flaw in the business model is not unique to us. But if you're working with a close margin of error, that's not good. So we had to make changes there.
Second, having a robust brand with basically two entries that you really can't afford to update more than every seven to eight years looks like a tough way to compete today. And third, the distributors can't make much money, so you don't get the important growth in the distribution network, the strength of the distribution network. So we came to the conclusion we needed to fill out the product portfolio, we needed to use the global capabilities of GM to do so, and we needed to move quickly in doing that.
So the vision for Saab and, as we have done for Saturn and Cadillac before, is to visualize the future and put forth a clearer footprint for the future. My sense is they're going to have to offer a broader portfolio and they're going to have to rely on the GM family to provide the architectures. Then we need to bring more clarity around the specific advantages and positioning of the Saab brand. And so what we know now is if being effective as a Saab requires that you be designed, engineered and built in Sweden, we know that model doesn't work for us. So we have to come up with a more expansive model.
Going forward, is Trollhatten still going to manufacture vehicles?
Generally our experience in the engineering cost, per hour of engineering, is quite effective in Sweden. And so we need to figure out the right way to use that with them supporting the Saab brand and the GM family. Work has been going on with that for a couple of years.
Frankly, from a manufacturing footprint perspective, Sweden is not anywhere near the most cost-competitive environment we work in, even in Europe, nor is it the least cost competitive. So it's not probably fair to say that that's specifically, or those two specifically, are the problem. It's probably a bigger issue. The idea of them sitting up there doing their own thing isn't going to work. We do need to bring the forces of leverage to support the Saab brand. That's really been the direction we've been on.
""""""""
greetings
this is a part of the interview....
"""""""What's the vision for Saab? It seems like an underperformer.
It has been an underperformer. I think the primary reason is that the business model didn't work on three counts. The basic business structure - producing and having most of your costs footprinted in Sweden and, to a certain extent, Germany with the supply base - and having 40 to 50 percent of the volume in the U.S. is tough to make work with the exchange rates. So a little flaw in the business model is not unique to us. But if you're working with a close margin of error, that's not good. So we had to make changes there.
Second, having a robust brand with basically two entries that you really can't afford to update more than every seven to eight years looks like a tough way to compete today. And third, the distributors can't make much money, so you don't get the important growth in the distribution network, the strength of the distribution network. So we came to the conclusion we needed to fill out the product portfolio, we needed to use the global capabilities of GM to do so, and we needed to move quickly in doing that.
So the vision for Saab and, as we have done for Saturn and Cadillac before, is to visualize the future and put forth a clearer footprint for the future. My sense is they're going to have to offer a broader portfolio and they're going to have to rely on the GM family to provide the architectures. Then we need to bring more clarity around the specific advantages and positioning of the Saab brand. And so what we know now is if being effective as a Saab requires that you be designed, engineered and built in Sweden, we know that model doesn't work for us. So we have to come up with a more expansive model.
Going forward, is Trollhatten still going to manufacture vehicles?
Generally our experience in the engineering cost, per hour of engineering, is quite effective in Sweden. And so we need to figure out the right way to use that with them supporting the Saab brand and the GM family. Work has been going on with that for a couple of years.
Frankly, from a manufacturing footprint perspective, Sweden is not anywhere near the most cost-competitive environment we work in, even in Europe, nor is it the least cost competitive. So it's not probably fair to say that that's specifically, or those two specifically, are the problem. It's probably a bigger issue. The idea of them sitting up there doing their own thing isn't going to work. We do need to bring the forces of leverage to support the Saab brand. That's really been the direction we've been on.
""""""""
greetings