About automobiles
Managerial economics is an important concept associated with project control and project outcomes assessment. Management is defined in the reading as the obligation to facilitate effective decision-making, encourage innovation, promote company or project growth, and, most importantly, streamline operations. The economics of management and project control provides greater emphasis on the internal issues surrounding operations, processes, and leadership. The lesson was worthy of my time and understanding based on the learned concepts of managerial economics and project management.
An Organization That Does Not Use Any Control Systems. Is This Justified?
Millennial Auto-Spares Org. is an example of a company that has yet to have fully functional control systems and its line of production. It is indeed not justified to lack control systems in any organization, as can be seen from the array of disadvantages suffered by Millennial Auto-Spares. First, Millennial Auto-Spares lacks a sound quality assurance; hence its automated functions, operational infrastructure, and architecture lack defense against risks and threats such as hacks. The company has also faced competition due to its products lacking longevity and increased operations costs. A working control system for Millennial Auto-Spares would have provided quality assessment capabilities, changes in company procedures and processes, appropriate inventory and resource allocation, timely decision-making, and enhanced production within the manufacturing sector.
Ford in the Era of Technology and Innovation
At the domestic front in the United States, Ford Automobiles and its assembly line saw great opportunities with new technologies and innovation. However, many local and foreign competitors, including Chevrolet, Toyota in Japan, and Germany Volkswagen, still competed for the dominant share in America’s car market. Ford is to blame for first replacing its largely trained and expert automobile engineers and mechanics into retrenchment to allow for robotics-based mass productions (Ford, 2015). The result in the beginning, including errors occasioned by poor computer-enabled designs. While other companies migrated to clean energy consumption, Ford lagged with no trials on electricity and solar-powered engines (Canis, 2013). This saw Ford lose more than $100 billion in future market projections as it also faced a large workforce in need of compensation.
General Motors’ Journey to Automation
Introducing computer-integrated manufacturing as well as robotics was not entirely an unnecessary idea for General Motors, but it should have chosen that for select plants. At first, this shift to automation produced undesired results such as massive layoffs, technical delays in production lines, and modest sales that dropped from the prior-established goals. GMs assembly line personnel lacked the requisite skills, IT knowledge, low preparedness, and low exert-based capabilities (Canis, 2013). The result included poor gains from available sales and delays in achieving the long-term goals set by automation. Another mistake involved trying to replace the majority of employees with computers and robots. Human errors became multiple within the GM assembly lines as personnel took time to train, to transfer career, low investment in emerging technological devices, and suffering from obsolete processes.
Other equally mistaken decisions made by General Motors is to fail to take benchmarks from advanced companies such as that of Mercedes in Germany. Instead, GM invested in lavish big capital investments while not building capable architecture to support robotics or computer-integrated processes. However much General Motors would have wished to outcompete other leading car manufacturers in the United States, it ought to have invested in human personnel, part-time robotic equipment, and awaken its assembly line with modern tools, processes, and equipment (Canis, 2013). In the end, as indicated by GM technological and innovation downfall, the company lost up to forty-five billion dollars while seeing the withdrawal of shares by up to forty percent by the contributors and shareholders.