There's been some moving of the goalposts, here. The initial deadline was to produce 5000 cars in a week, meaning, to have ramped up production to a point where pumping up 5000 cars a week was...
There's been some moving of the goalposts, here. The initial deadline was to produce 5000 cars in a week, meaning, to have ramped up production to a point where pumping up 5000 cars a week was sustainable.
What Tesla essentially did was scramble and work as hard as they could to meet that deadline irregardless of sustainability. Building an assembly line out of scrap parts under a tent in the parking lot isn't a sustainable production pipeline.
So it seems to me that Tesla hit the letter, if not the intent, of the deadline. The challenge now becomes to hit the next milestone, and then the next... And the more you push back doing the actual groundwork to get you to sustainability, the more you risk a dramatic collapse somewhere down the line.
Well put. Your comment made me flashback to the movie “Gung Ho” with Michael Keaton. Same situation. Car factory historically underperforming but scrambled to hit the deadline when under the gun.
Well put. Your comment made me flashback to the movie “Gung Ho” with Michael Keaton. Same situation. Car factory historically underperforming but scrambled to hit the deadline when under the gun.
And the haters said the same thing when they hit 3000 cars per week. The fact is that you have to hit it once before you can maintain it. Will they slip to 4500 this week? Maybe, but it's not like...
There's been some moving of the goalposts, here. The initial deadline was to produce 5000 cars in a week, meaning, to have ramped up production to a point where pumping up 5000 cars a week was sustainable.
And the haters said the same thing when they hit 3000 cars per week. The fact is that you have to hit it once before you can maintain it. Will they slip to 4500 this week? Maybe, but it's not like they're going to go back to 1000. It's the first milestone on the path.
What Tesla essentially did was scramble and work as hard as they could to meet that deadline irregardless of sustainability. Building an assembly line out of scrap parts under a tent in the parking lot isn't a sustainable production pipeline.
You make it sound like they threw together a bunch of crap and are churning out lower quality production. Here is what the assembly line in the tent actually looks like. It's a lot more sophisticated than the "tent" terminology evokes.
First of all, I'm not a "hater," I'm an observer. I have no vested interested for or against Tesla. Second, my interest in this comes from managing software development production processes in the...
And the haters said the same thing when they hit 3000 cars per week. The fact is that you have to hit it once before you can maintain it. Will they slip to 4500 this week? Maybe, but it's not like they're going to go back to 1000. It's the first milestone on the path.
First of all, I'm not a "hater," I'm an observer. I have no vested interested for or against Tesla.
Second, my interest in this comes from managing software development production processes in the past, specifically video games. Now, those are really different from making cars, but I'm pretty sure the notion of cramming for a deadline is transferable. Cramming works for hitting an important milestone, but they have a few negative consequences:
They're not sustainable solutions, i.e. you can't predict future output based on this high rate unless crunching becomes the norm (and crunching is never sustainable long-term);
They mean cutting corners like documentation, or in the case of code, technical debt;
They tire out your team, damage team morale and make the best go work elsewhere.
All that is to say, it's not sustainable. Is it an important demonstration of productivity? Yes. But the fact it was such a cram job is a sign that the production line isn't there yet.
The tent is the perfect illustration how temporary this is. It's not that the tent resembles a refugee camp or not... It's the fact that the solutions designed to hit this milestone are SO temporary that they were housed in a temporary building structure.
So we'll see. It's entirely possible that, as you say, the general trend is towards gradual improvement from now on. But there are clear signs that this milestone was hit using non-sustainable methods that are gonna bite them in the ass very shortly.
I didn't mean to imply that you personally were a Tesla hater, but I definitely see why I came across that way. My only real point was that there was a lot of doubt when the last milestone was...
I didn't mean to imply that you personally were a Tesla hater, but I definitely see why I came across that way. My only real point was that there was a lot of doubt when the last milestone was reached but Tesla kept performing.
Now, those are really different from making cars, but I'm pretty sure the notion of cramming for a deadline is transferable.
It is an assumption that "cramming" is happening. While that may be the narrative that is being pushed in the news reports of this milestone, we don't really know if it is a result of cramming or the result of continued growth and improvement.
The tent is the perfect illustration how temporary this is. It's not that the tent resembles a refugee camp or not... It's the fact that the solutions designed to hit this milestone are SO temporary that they were housed in a temporary building structure.
I don't know what Tesla's plans are, but it's entirely possible that the tent is only being used while other, more permanent solutions are under construction. If that is the case the tent only represents the fact that they were able to increase production before permanent capacity was completed. I don't know if that is truly what is happening, but it is a possibility and in my opinion just as much of a possibility as anything else.
But there are clear signs that this milestone was hit using non-sustainable methods that are gonna bite them in the ass very shortly.
And I'll reiterate that the same thing was said when they hit 3000. The "clear signs" don't seem to come from inside Tesla, but from speculating reports outside of the company. You could absolutely be correct, I just don't think we know for sure and so far Tesla has been able to surprise most of their doubters.
No worries. And I do get your point. Well, that's what I'm arguing. Of course we don't know whether cramming is happening or not, but I'm suggesting that circumstantial evidence points to...
I didn't mean to imply that you personally were a Tesla hater, but I definitely see why I came across that way. My only real point was that there was a lot of doubt when the last milestone was reached but Tesla kept performing.
No worries. And I do get your point.
It is an assumption that "cramming" is happening. While that may be the narrative that is being pushed in the news reports of this milestone, we don't really know if it is a result of cramming or the result of continued growth and improvement.
Well, that's what I'm arguing. Of course we don't know whether cramming is happening or not, but I'm suggesting that circumstantial evidence points to cramming. Building a temporary structure is DEFINITELY a sign of cramming, whether they manage to turn this around or not. You don't see other automakers put up temporary structures to meet production deadlines.
There are other signs, such as Musk vowing to stay 24/7 at the plant until they hit the deadline. (Can't find a source for it, but it was in the news a little while back.) A CEO is pretty much useless in meeting a deadline, but it's something good leaders do to show solidarity with workers in hard times. For me, that implies that Musk is asking his team to crunch and being a good leader by being there with them to keep them motivated.
Again, not hard evidence, but my experience tells me they crammed hard to meet this deadline as it was a bit of a "do or die" with the press and investors. Whether there will be a technical debt to pay moving forward, only time will tell.
Then I assume you're not familiar with Skunkworks, possibly the most advanced aerospace division ever? Built the most sophisticated planes of the cold war giving the US huge advantages, started...
You don't see other automakers put up temporary structures to meet production deadlines.
Then I assume you're not familiar with Skunkworks, possibly the most advanced aerospace division ever? Built the most sophisticated planes of the cold war giving the US huge advantages, started out building planes in an overheated 'circus tent' with 60's tech. Not an automaker but very related
But that's completely and utterly different... Skunk Works were an autonomous, almost maverick team trying to build cutting-edge technology. We're talking about an automaker who's trying to...
But that's completely and utterly different... Skunk Works were an autonomous, almost maverick team trying to build cutting-edge technology. We're talking about an automaker who's trying to produce one car per minute for delivery to consumers. Their goal was innovation, not mass production.
There is clear record that "cramming" is happening in the article: "One worker told Reuters that, to meet the goal, employees from other departments were dispatched to parts of the Model 3...
There is clear record that "cramming" is happening in the article: "One worker told Reuters that, to meet the goal, employees from other departments were dispatched to parts of the Model 3 assembly line to keep it running constantly, and breaks were staggered 'so the line didn’t stop moving.' The worker also said some areas within the factory were shut down to divert their workers to help out on the Model 3, such as the Model S line."
Disclaimer: I'm an automotive engineer and not a fan of Tesla. I don't do manufacturing, but I did spend a few years working with customer satisfaction and what-not Anyway, an average assembly...
Disclaimer: I'm an automotive engineer and not a fan of Tesla. I don't do manufacturing, but I did spend a few years working with customer satisfaction and what-not
Anyway, an average assembly line running at a normal, sustainable rate can pump out a car about every minute. There are about 10000 minutes in a week. That means in order to hit 5000/week you would need to be running at about half the time. You could reasonably have 2 crews working 40 hours a week and hit that sort of pace no problem. You can sustain that pretty much indefinitely, though you still need to do occasional maintenance.
I don't have any inside information about Tesla, but I have no reason to believe they're building up a sustainable solution. They built a new assembly line in a fucking tent. And Musk is bragging about how much overtime he's putting in. Overtime burns employees out. They start making mistakes. Rushing causes mistakes too. And I can't imagine Musk would take kindly to 'we need to slow down and be more careful'
I would love to do a quality audit on this batch. I suppose it's possible they were able to maintain build quality, but I'll believe it when I see it. What I do know makes me incredibly skeptical. I bet there's sand everywhere
Anyway, my point is 5000 during a week is very different than 5000/week sustained. And that's very different than 5000/week sustained while maintaining quality.
And he's claiming that they're going to hit 6000/week next month.
Although they are both making automobiles, I don't think you can compare an assembly line from a major ICE manufacturer and Tesla's assembly line. They are going to be inherently different. Plus...
Although they are both making automobiles, I don't think you can compare an assembly line from a major ICE manufacturer and Tesla's assembly line. They are going to be inherently different.
Plus quick math on Ford's numbers (6.6 million cars produced in 2017 in 31 assembly factories) give me approximately 4000 cars produced per week on average.
And I can't imagine Musk would take kindly to 'we need to slow down and be more careful'
Which is exactly what he did when he shut down an assembly line to work on the automation issues they were having.
Why can't I compare them? Because Musk juat announced they're a 'real' car company. And strictly speaking, I'm not comparing them line to line, I'm comparing line to line+line-under-tent. I'm also...
Why can't I compare them? Because Musk juat announced they're a 'real' car company. And strictly speaking, I'm not comparing them line to line, I'm comparing line to line+line-under-tent.
I'm also not sure what your argument about Ford is trying to say, but thank you for confirming what a real car company can do sustainably. The 5000 number was assuming the types of shifts I mentioned and the about 1 vehicle/minute rate which will vary from vehicle to vehicle. Let's apply your math to Tesla. They produced 7000 vehicles last week. I'm not certain, but would guess they're running 4 lines: S, X, 3, tent. 7000/4 is 1750. Or 2500 per Model 3 line 'on average' for this last week. We know Tesla is trying to produce as many cars as possible. The question just comes down to what kind of corners they're willing to cut to hit those targets. We already know they're building under a fucking tent.
Also, Musk shut down their overemphasis on automation because it didn't work not because it was moving too fast to maintain build quality.
You said an average assembly line can put out 5,000 cars per week when running two shifts working 40 hours per week, but Ford puts out an average of 4,000 per week per factory, not per assembly...
I'm also not sure what your argument about Ford is trying to say, but thank you for confirming what a real car company can do sustainably.
You said an average assembly line can put out 5,000 cars per week when running two shifts working 40 hours per week, but Ford puts out an average of 4,000 per week per factory, not per assembly line. I guess it's possible that every factory has a single assembly line, but considering many of them make more than one type of vehicle I don't think that's likely.
I guess I don't understand your criticism of Tesla's production when Ford is apparently seriously under-producing according to your own numbers.
The question just comes down to what kind of corners they're willing to cut to hit those targets. We already know they're building under a fucking tent.
I addressed this in another comment, but it's not like they have a fucking circus tent in a parking lot.
Also, Musk shut down their overemphasis on automation because it didn't work not because it was moving too fast to maintain build quality.
So he slowed production to assess and correct quality? But I thought you said he wouldn't do that?
I probably should have mentioned this before, but other OEMs build multiple vehicles on the same assembly line using rather impressive logistics. As far as I'm aware, Tesla uses dedicated assembly...
I probably should have mentioned this before, but other OEMs build multiple vehicles on the same assembly line using rather impressive logistics. As far as I'm aware, Tesla uses dedicated assembly lines for each unique vehicle.
But claiming Ford is having trouble figuring out how to build cars, but Tesla isn't, is just insane. I'm sorry, but that view is completely detached from reality. To the point that I don't even know what to say to you.
Your argument about stopping the production process because it doesn't work being the same as slowing down to maintain quality doesn't make any sense either. By that logic, if one of their machines literally fell apart, it would still count as slowing down to maintain quality.
Anyway, I'm done here. I clearly know nothing about the field I work in.
Oh, by the way, dust doesn't care about the aesthetics of the tent. It's still going to get everywhere.
I didn't say that anywhere. I'm saying your numbers have to be off if Ford is only producing 4,000 cars per week at a plant level. Again you're missing the point. The automation didn't "not work"...
But claiming Ford is having trouble figuring out how to build cars, but Tesla isn't, is just insane.
I didn't say that anywhere. I'm saying your numbers have to be off if Ford is only producing 4,000 cars per week at a plant level.
Your argument about stopping the production process because it doesn't work being the same as slowing down to maintain quality doesn't make any sense either. By that logic, if one of their machines literally fell apart, it would still count as slowing down to maintain quality.
Again you're missing the point. The automation didn't "not work" - it worked fine and cars were produced under it. The problem was that the automation they had couldn't grow with the expanded production, so they slowed down/halted production to make it better. Which is exactly what you said they wouldn't do.
If the process didn't work then what production did they have to stop? Wouldn't it have been stopped already?
Anyway, I'm done here. I clearly know nothing about the field I work in.
I thought you said you weren't in manufacturing?
Oh, by the way, dust doesn't care about the aesthetics of the tent. It's still going to get everywhere.
Sounds like every time I have a deadline. We work our asses off expecting either a bonus, time off or to literally be saving our job, only to have another deadline requiring overworking for...
It was not clear if Tesla could maintain that level of production for a longer period.
Sounds like every time I have a deadline. We work our asses off expecting either a bonus, time off or to literally be saving our job, only to have another deadline requiring overworking for minimal or no payout. Do regular employees get bonuses for killing themselves or do they only get the satisfaction of keeping a job?
They get the satisfaction of proving "haters" wrong. link
They get the satisfaction of proving "haters" wrong.
Doug Field, the engineering chief, told staff that if they can exceed 300 Model 3s a day, it would be an “incredible victory”... “Let’s make them regret ever betting against us. You will prove a bunch of haters wrong.”
Eesh. I’ve seen multiple articles of Musk saying to work double or triple what others do to get there faster, but this is just bad. He’s not just wncouraging, but expecting his employees to work...
Eesh. I’ve seen multiple articles of Musk saying to work double or triple what others do to get there faster, but this is just bad. He’s not just wncouraging, but expecting his employees to work to the bone and all for his bottom line.
It's totally par for the course. Build your corporate culture around "us vs. them" and you can convince your employees to kill themselves to make you rich. In this sense Musk is just playing the...
It's totally par for the course. Build your corporate culture around "us vs. them" and you can convince your employees to kill themselves to make you rich.
In this sense Musk is just playing the game. I don't even think he's as bad as, say, Jobs was.
There has been nothing posted that says employees aren't receiving additional benefits for hitting milestones - unless someone with actual information says what is going on we can only speculate.
There has been nothing posted that says employees aren't receiving additional benefits for hitting milestones - unless someone with actual information says what is going on we can only speculate.
There's been some moving of the goalposts, here. The initial deadline was to produce 5000 cars in a week, meaning, to have ramped up production to a point where pumping up 5000 cars a week was sustainable.
What Tesla essentially did was scramble and work as hard as they could to meet that deadline irregardless of sustainability. Building an assembly line out of scrap parts under a tent in the parking lot isn't a sustainable production pipeline.
So it seems to me that Tesla hit the letter, if not the intent, of the deadline. The challenge now becomes to hit the next milestone, and then the next... And the more you push back doing the actual groundwork to get you to sustainability, the more you risk a dramatic collapse somewhere down the line.
Well put. Your comment made me flashback to the movie “Gung Ho” with Michael Keaton. Same situation. Car factory historically underperforming but scrambled to hit the deadline when under the gun.
And the haters said the same thing when they hit 3000 cars per week. The fact is that you have to hit it once before you can maintain it. Will they slip to 4500 this week? Maybe, but it's not like they're going to go back to 1000. It's the first milestone on the path.
You make it sound like they threw together a bunch of crap and are churning out lower quality production. Here is what the assembly line in the tent actually looks like. It's a lot more sophisticated than the "tent" terminology evokes.
First of all, I'm not a "hater," I'm an observer. I have no vested interested for or against Tesla.
Second, my interest in this comes from managing software development production processes in the past, specifically video games. Now, those are really different from making cars, but I'm pretty sure the notion of cramming for a deadline is transferable. Cramming works for hitting an important milestone, but they have a few negative consequences:
All that is to say, it's not sustainable. Is it an important demonstration of productivity? Yes. But the fact it was such a cram job is a sign that the production line isn't there yet.
The tent is the perfect illustration how temporary this is. It's not that the tent resembles a refugee camp or not... It's the fact that the solutions designed to hit this milestone are SO temporary that they were housed in a temporary building structure.
So we'll see. It's entirely possible that, as you say, the general trend is towards gradual improvement from now on. But there are clear signs that this milestone was hit using non-sustainable methods that are gonna bite them in the ass very shortly.
I didn't mean to imply that you personally were a Tesla hater, but I definitely see why I came across that way. My only real point was that there was a lot of doubt when the last milestone was reached but Tesla kept performing.
It is an assumption that "cramming" is happening. While that may be the narrative that is being pushed in the news reports of this milestone, we don't really know if it is a result of cramming or the result of continued growth and improvement.
I don't know what Tesla's plans are, but it's entirely possible that the tent is only being used while other, more permanent solutions are under construction. If that is the case the tent only represents the fact that they were able to increase production before permanent capacity was completed. I don't know if that is truly what is happening, but it is a possibility and in my opinion just as much of a possibility as anything else.
And I'll reiterate that the same thing was said when they hit 3000. The "clear signs" don't seem to come from inside Tesla, but from speculating reports outside of the company. You could absolutely be correct, I just don't think we know for sure and so far Tesla has been able to surprise most of their doubters.
No worries. And I do get your point.
Well, that's what I'm arguing. Of course we don't know whether cramming is happening or not, but I'm suggesting that circumstantial evidence points to cramming. Building a temporary structure is DEFINITELY a sign of cramming, whether they manage to turn this around or not. You don't see other automakers put up temporary structures to meet production deadlines.
There are other signs, such as Musk vowing to stay 24/7 at the plant until they hit the deadline. (Can't find a source for it, but it was in the news a little while back.) A CEO is pretty much useless in meeting a deadline, but it's something good leaders do to show solidarity with workers in hard times. For me, that implies that Musk is asking his team to crunch and being a good leader by being there with them to keep them motivated.
Again, not hard evidence, but my experience tells me they crammed hard to meet this deadline as it was a bit of a "do or die" with the press and investors. Whether there will be a technical debt to pay moving forward, only time will tell.
Then I assume you're not familiar with Skunkworks, possibly the most advanced aerospace division ever? Built the most sophisticated planes of the cold war giving the US huge advantages, started out building planes in an overheated 'circus tent' with 60's tech. Not an automaker but very related
But that's completely and utterly different... Skunk Works were an autonomous, almost maverick team trying to build cutting-edge technology. We're talking about an automaker who's trying to produce one car per minute for delivery to consumers. Their goal was innovation, not mass production.
There is clear record that "cramming" is happening in the article: "One worker told Reuters that, to meet the goal, employees from other departments were dispatched to parts of the Model 3 assembly line to keep it running constantly, and breaks were staggered 'so the line didn’t stop moving.' The worker also said some areas within the factory were shut down to divert their workers to help out on the Model 3, such as the Model S line."
Disclaimer: I'm an automotive engineer and not a fan of Tesla. I don't do manufacturing, but I did spend a few years working with customer satisfaction and what-not
Anyway, an average assembly line running at a normal, sustainable rate can pump out a car about every minute. There are about 10000 minutes in a week. That means in order to hit 5000/week you would need to be running at about half the time. You could reasonably have 2 crews working 40 hours a week and hit that sort of pace no problem. You can sustain that pretty much indefinitely, though you still need to do occasional maintenance.
I don't have any inside information about Tesla, but I have no reason to believe they're building up a sustainable solution. They built a new assembly line in a fucking tent. And Musk is bragging about how much overtime he's putting in. Overtime burns employees out. They start making mistakes. Rushing causes mistakes too. And I can't imagine Musk would take kindly to 'we need to slow down and be more careful'
I would love to do a quality audit on this batch. I suppose it's possible they were able to maintain build quality, but I'll believe it when I see it. What I do know makes me incredibly skeptical. I bet there's sand everywhere
Anyway, my point is 5000 during a week is very different than 5000/week sustained. And that's very different than 5000/week sustained while maintaining quality.
And he's claiming that they're going to hit 6000/week next month.
Although they are both making automobiles, I don't think you can compare an assembly line from a major ICE manufacturer and Tesla's assembly line. They are going to be inherently different.
Plus quick math on Ford's numbers (6.6 million cars produced in 2017 in 31 assembly factories) give me approximately 4000 cars produced per week on average.
Which is exactly what he did when he shut down an assembly line to work on the automation issues they were having.
Why can't I compare them? Because Musk juat announced they're a 'real' car company. And strictly speaking, I'm not comparing them line to line, I'm comparing line to line+line-under-tent.
I'm also not sure what your argument about Ford is trying to say, but thank you for confirming what a real car company can do sustainably. The 5000 number was assuming the types of shifts I mentioned and the about 1 vehicle/minute rate which will vary from vehicle to vehicle. Let's apply your math to Tesla. They produced 7000 vehicles last week. I'm not certain, but would guess they're running 4 lines: S, X, 3, tent. 7000/4 is 1750. Or 2500 per Model 3 line 'on average' for this last week. We know Tesla is trying to produce as many cars as possible. The question just comes down to what kind of corners they're willing to cut to hit those targets. We already know they're building under a fucking tent.
Also, Musk shut down their overemphasis on automation because it didn't work not because it was moving too fast to maintain build quality.
You said an average assembly line can put out 5,000 cars per week when running two shifts working 40 hours per week, but Ford puts out an average of 4,000 per week per factory, not per assembly line. I guess it's possible that every factory has a single assembly line, but considering many of them make more than one type of vehicle I don't think that's likely.
I guess I don't understand your criticism of Tesla's production when Ford is apparently seriously under-producing according to your own numbers.
I addressed this in another comment, but it's not like they have a fucking circus tent in a parking lot.
So he slowed production to assess and correct quality? But I thought you said he wouldn't do that?
I probably should have mentioned this before, but other OEMs build multiple vehicles on the same assembly line using rather impressive logistics. As far as I'm aware, Tesla uses dedicated assembly lines for each unique vehicle.
But claiming Ford is having trouble figuring out how to build cars, but Tesla isn't, is just insane. I'm sorry, but that view is completely detached from reality. To the point that I don't even know what to say to you.
Your argument about stopping the production process because it doesn't work being the same as slowing down to maintain quality doesn't make any sense either. By that logic, if one of their machines literally fell apart, it would still count as slowing down to maintain quality.
Anyway, I'm done here. I clearly know nothing about the field I work in.
Oh, by the way, dust doesn't care about the aesthetics of the tent. It's still going to get everywhere.
I didn't say that anywhere. I'm saying your numbers have to be off if Ford is only producing 4,000 cars per week at a plant level.
Again you're missing the point. The automation didn't "not work" - it worked fine and cars were produced under it. The problem was that the automation they had couldn't grow with the expanded production, so they slowed down/halted production to make it better. Which is exactly what you said they wouldn't do.
If the process didn't work then what production did they have to stop? Wouldn't it have been stopped already?
I thought you said you weren't in manufacturing?
Right, because I was referring to aesthetics.
Sounds like every time I have a deadline. We work our asses off expecting either a bonus, time off or to literally be saving our job, only to have another deadline requiring overworking for minimal or no payout. Do regular employees get bonuses for killing themselves or do they only get the satisfaction of keeping a job?
They get the satisfaction of proving "haters" wrong.
link
Eesh. I’ve seen multiple articles of Musk saying to work double or triple what others do to get there faster, but this is just bad. He’s not just wncouraging, but expecting his employees to work to the bone and all for his bottom line.
It's totally par for the course. Build your corporate culture around "us vs. them" and you can convince your employees to kill themselves to make you rich.
In this sense Musk is just playing the game. I don't even think he's as bad as, say, Jobs was.
There has been nothing posted that says employees aren't receiving additional benefits for hitting milestones - unless someone with actual information says what is going on we can only speculate.
They could also have performance or goal-based incentives.