Email stating no code changes in ANY environment from October 2026 until August 1, 2027, except for “keep the lights on”. Do we really think FMMC is going to let that many employees sit there with no productivity that long?
21 replies (most recent on top)
@dm+1m0m801d6 ford keeps oscillating (engineering word) between "this portion of I.T. MUST be in house, it is a competitive advantage" to "outsource it all, it's not our core business." I thought they would have outsourced more of it than they have by now.
@fn GM has always had fewer IT people. They outsourced IT long before the others when they partnered with EDS.
@nt ill be sure to tell the person doing my oil change at the ford dealership thank you for engineering that
@n6 when you work for an auto manufacturer, that's more honorable than keyboard junky
@ff Engineering = lab coat grease monkey. Got it. Sorry sir.
@fz This is true, I was always amazed by the quality of a one of the fist European cars I had about 20 years ago, the tech was amazing and simple, even some nice to haves we don't have today. It's sad the way these people think, how much is "data monetization" worth compared to a new vehicle sale? If it were my company I'd focus less on the potential $20 I'm going to make on this and more about the $20k I can make on a sale.
@dn lets be honest much of the “innovations” are about collecting and monetizing customer data. Early on customer feedback was that they wanted to snap in an iPad / iPhone /other to the dash and use the gps and mapping from the device. Customers expressed that they would always have a mobile device to use. This was not the feedback Ford wanted so they ignored it.
Now on some of the other things you mentioned. If you are at Ford you know that software has been used to “patch” parts that are not performing to spec (transmissions, brakes, etc). Instead of doing the right thing , slap some bubble gum on it and hope it limps along past the warranty period.
Door ajar, trunk ajar, tire pressure alerts, keyless entry all existed pre-software in German manufactured vehicles. The systems worked reliably and consistently.
@fh+1m0m801d6 people have different views of IT. I started in IT modifying operating systems, then wrote compilers and interpreters, then did network engineering, then designed databases, then wrote commercial grade software for software companies, then worked in software infrastructure consulting type roles and also general coding. So I have seen pretty much every facet of IT.
I would tell you from personal experience that Ford has a ton of IT bloat. Many in IT roles are not fit for purpose. If a Ford employees only experience with IT has been with those not fit for purpose, they will say can all of IT. Unfortunately the not fit for purpose employees often have the most time to interface with other people as the 20% who are fit for purpose are too busy trying to do all the work.
So both these statements are true
- 80% of Ford IT staff can be laid off ( the right 80%)
- Ford IT staff is critical to the business (the 20% who are fit for purpose)
The trouble is leadership doesn’t know which 20% are fit for purpose
@OP If the code freeze is true then it is likely because they intend to release a significant portion of US IT staff. The last time I observed Ford having an extended code freeze was when they transitioned all of the IT maintenance to India back 20+ years ago. They nearly cut all the senior US IT staff at the end of the freeze. The unstated purpose of the freeze was to stabilize the code and allow for ramp up time by the Indian staff.
That was the period where Ford management had decided all new code was to be written in US and maintenance done in India. Of course it was a s***show.
@fk to contrast, GM has only about 4,500 salaried IT people. Ford is bloated here, not to mention all the ancillary "services" departments and organizational staff not even included in IT
@fk @fk You are exactly right; we have far too much bloat. I was always taught to keep it simple. I live by this principle whenever possible. Perhaps I'm not bright enough to figure out overly complex systems, but I don't think most people are.
While I agree we need a lot of technology, many basic systems like ABS, OBD, and fuel injection are mature. They work well and don't necessarily need constant reinvention. It might be worth keeping a small, dedicated team to build a better mousetrap for these components, but we should stop trying to make the entire ecosystem increasingly complex.
@fg. I agree with you, but at the same time, you are looking it at the wrong angle. A lean, well built vehicle, is always appreciated by the connoisseurs. You want that, and I want that.
Most people buying a vehicle are not savvy. Luckily for the company, they buy it for the shape, color, and how it looks inside and outside, because if they would buy only for the quality, Ford would not sell a single vehicle in the last couple of years.
Another point for the "software" features, is that allows the company to overprice their mechanical junk. Yes, it is true that 60% of the complaints on new vehicles is related to software (that's because of outsourcing, the rushing and awful managers). I am sure the mechanical design issues at Ford are due to the same reasons. However, those same software features allow Ford to overcharge thousands of dollars to customers and compete with other manufacturers.
@dm... Remove the onboard computer from any vehicle, and what do you have? A ready for the junkyard piece of trash. All the mechanical engineering in the world cannot make it work without the electronics. Carburetors were nice, easier to repair than current models, but could not achieve the gas savings of today.
Modern vehicles need to fusion mechanical engineering with electronics and their programming. So your point of view is really outdated. And outsourcing IT has the same implications for the company than outsourcing the mechanical design and assembly: shoddy quality.
Please go and play with your Model T, and let the adults in the room have a nice chat.
@de If you haven't realized, you are living in modern times, where everything has electronics and programming embedded. Even your electrical razor and refrigerator.
Ford needs IT almost more than it needs mechanical engineering. How are you going to comply with all the laws in order to sell the vehicles without IT? How are you going to keep track of your precious mechanical parts? How are you planning to communicate internally, without email, chat and VOIP phones? Are you going back to typewriters and landlines? I am not dissing mechanical engineering, just showing you how important is IT.
We have to design our sh!t like you have to design yours. We have to study and learn as much as you do in your engineering. Only one caveat... IT changes faster than any other "traditional" engineering, so we need to apply ourselves constantly.
Being disrespectful to another engineer won't make your point, and calling us programmers or not real engineers, is like me calling you grease monkey. You're welcome.
@dn No one actually in the market for a new vehicle says:
"I need to pay Ford $50 a month for BlueCruise."
"I need built-in GPS because I always forget my phone and won't know where I'm going."
"I can't have a car without lane departure assist and BLIS."
How did we get here? It's partially legal requirements and partially marketing asking people, "Do you want that?" When everyone says "yes," well, here we go. The famous Henry Ford quote about "faster horses" comes to mind.
If you asked me, I'd say I want those features too. But do I buy a car because of them? No, and not many others do either. Half of the features you're talking about are engineered and purchased from suppliers.
People want vehicles that are fun, economical, and durable, not an iPhone on wheels. If I'm paying $70,000 for an Explorer, why not just buy a BMW or Lexus? Their tech might not be as advanced as ours, but most people would still prefer the BMW. We need to know our customer. Honestly, I hear more people asking for an iPad mount.
@dh elitist? think before you speak
@dm So don't innovate, don't compete, stay the same? No autonomous driving, no CarPlay, no third party integration support for parts that can also interface with the infotainment screen to allow for an ecosystem of people building and innovating on top of your vehicle? no lidar, no sensors for automatic brake systems, no lane departure assist, no blind side mirror monitoring? no adaptive cruise control? no controllable car lights? no vehicle diagnostic monitoring through OBD port? no automatic oil change detection? no tire pressure observability? no detection for open doors/trunk? no keyless entry? no mobile phone push to start? no gps without requiring phone? etc. ok old pup, no new tricks. got it.
When I was a young pup real engineers wore engineering coats because they were up close and involved with the actual mechanics of how a vehicle was put together and needed a way to keep their shirts clean, the good ones even had pocket protectors, it may not be se-y but it's the hard math and science that actually creates the "mobile" part of an automobile. Fundamentally, aside from electrification changes, the vehicle hasn't changed that much in the last 30 years. You wouldn't call it a auto tablet would you?
IT can and should be outsourced. We need to get back to the basics of designing a vehicle that's durable, reliable and efficient. IT has created a cottage industry of digitization inside vehicles that simply doesn't need to be there for 95% of the vehicle features that people actually buy an automobile for. Sorry but slapping millions of lines of code together so your screen can connect a GPS to Google Maps does not need an army.
I'd prefer an analog gauge cluster and my iPad for maps and infotainment, why we spend billions on developing technology that no one wants is insanity to me.
@dh database, frontend, backend. each part has more eg for db-replication/sharding/multi-region/caching/indexing, distributed systems in general, concurrency, idempotency, testing/accessibility/reliability/load balancing/reproducibility/observability/auditing/reversibility/performance/compliance/zero-trust/ etc. its all engineering.
@de u are an elitist dou--ebag tbh. pat yourself on the back harder. writing computer "instructions" albeit stupid because you're not literally sitting there writing assembly in 2026, but anyway you sound like a di-khead because you think that is all the job is about. I wish you said something that actually was worth getting mad at and replying because you sound like you don't know what you're talking about hence why the assumption and "question". you obviously think it's so easy so why don't you do every part of an engineers job that has to do with being behind a screen. networking/deployment-pipeline/infrastructure/software-dev/versioning/syncing/scaling/migrating/mitigating/cyber-security/product-dev/customer-feedback-iteration/server-management/resource-procurement/identity-access-management/backups-failovers/I-can-go-on-and-on
IT - 1/3 of the salaried headcount - Real Engineering (mechanical/electrical/powertrain/industrial...) only slightly larger.... Are you managing the hardware or are you writing computer instructions? I really don't understand the whole calling yourselves "engineers" they're called programmers.
@OP. IDK if the code freeze is true, but it may make sense. Ford is doing a huge transition to LCCs, including all the IT force. Several teams are being replaced with MSPs and the cut off date is September 30th, or November 30th, depending of the team. So the freeze may be to allow a period of adjustment, letting the new guys to adapt to the environment, before dealing with all the cr@p the developers create at Ford.