VW Emissions Scandal
Posted by: Minh Nguyen on 22 September 2015
Never put things on pedestals!
more interesting will be who is next to be found out, lots of other mfrs share value dropping...
It just seems so stupid. Did they really think it would remain undetected?
It is going to destroy VW in the US I think, for a time at least. Corporate image is going to take a massive battering however contrite they appear. Rather as the Firestone tyre scandal a few years back.
I find it amazing that this bit of bit of trickery could actually be designed and implemented in secret. Maybe answers will appear but was this inserted by a little cabal of rogue software engineers, or did it reflect a deliberate management decision? If the latter it is amazing nobody blew the whistle...or perhaps they did.
I suppose we have to ask also if the US regs for NOx and diesel engines are reasonable if a company had to do this to get past them.
Bruce
Bruce
Volkwagen Das AvtoGoal !
BTW, do you think eu commission will ask VW to stop selling cars with diesel engines that do not meet latest EU emmissions?
Hopefully, the US (and other countries) will review it's emission testing approach, too (I.e use a trail-tipe test rather than getting a reading from the OBD)
As usual US just relies on computer printouts not real world testing.
Shame VW didn't take part in all the bank scandals? They may have got away with it then. Maybe the public can pay their fines?
In some respects I feel sorry for VW. In my old work life we had diesel engines over the years that changed designs over time through the stages of Euro & the different USA EPA regulations. We kept "legal" even though not required to as for some reason even though our units are mounted on trucks, they were not the prime mover power unit & were classified as stationary. Eventually the Euro & EPA regulations aligned along the same spec & testing methods & stationary engines came under the same control.
Throughout all this the Californian regulations were different to the rest of USA, we could met the US & Euro stnd., but it took a lot more to achieve a pass in California, this included very specific fuel flow rates that to be honest we could not meet with any but brand new injection systems, & with the latest (current) standards it also requires special special exhaust particulate filters specificity for units in California.
VW got caught & its clear they were trying to be find a dishonest way around the problem, but it all rings a very familiar bell.
Well, time to go electric!
VW shouldnt have cheated. However, there are some barking statements, for example, the Guarduan suggests that VW caused 1m tonnes of extra pollution. I didnt realise that VW made driverless cars already ...
I really hope that the emmissions based taxation kerbed, as it clearly drive the wrong kind of behaviour. Imagine what push to electricity will drive claims that nuckear power sourced electricity is safe and good.
Then there are no buses, trains or taxes in thatLondon
VW shouldnt have cheated. However, there are some barking statements, for example, the Guarduan suggests that VW caused 1m tonnes of extra pollution. I didnt realise that VW made driverless cars already ...
I really hope that the emmissions based taxation kerbed, as it clearly drive the wrong kind of behaviour. Imagine what push to electricity will drive claims that nuckear power sourced electricity is safe and good.
does anyone read that toilet paper, really ?
I don't think you can underestimate the magnitude of the disaster that's hit V.W. How they could have been so catastrophically stupid is quite beyond me and the survival of the company must be in jeopardy. I can't see how they can recover from this.
I can't see how they can recover from this.
I wonder what the knock on effect will be to the rest of the VAG group. A great shame.
It's hard to imagine for me that this level of deceit occurred under approval from the most senior management level within VW. Which leads me to wonder, at what level was this strategy conceived? Was it senior management pressured by the board? Was it middle management? Or was it a design team, being economical with the truth, tasked with meeting a goal that could not be achieved otherwise, if it was to remain economically viable?
The tactic of removing the top man is purely PR, nothing to do with the actual problem. Also the media have grasped this as an opportunity to create great news, the facts are something else.
I have no interest in defending the actions of the VW group, what they have done is wrong, but I love to know exactly how it went wrong.
It's hard to imagine for me that this level of deceit occurred under approval from the most senior management level within VW. Which leads me to wonder, at what level was this strategy conceived? Was it senior management pressured by the board? Was it middle management? Or was it a design team, being economical with the truth, tasked with meeting a goal that could not be achieved otherwise, if it was to remain economically viable?
The tactic of removing the top man is purely PR, nothing to do with the actual problem. Also the media have grasped this as an opportunity to create great news, the facts are something else.
I have no interest in defending the actions of the VW group, what they have done is wrong, but I love to know exactly how it went wrong.
Me too. I also hope societal and government policy lessons are learned some of the redistribution of the £4.7bn does not end up in bureaucracy and fees to lawyers.
All this really shows that big companies don't care a f..., sorry, a tinker's curse, about the environment, nor about people's lives. I hope there will be criminal charges, and prison sentences.
The article from the Guardian is quite convincing, as usual - VW drivers couldn't possibly know that the tests had been rigged.
It's hard to imagine for me that this level of deceit occurred under approval from the most senior management level within VW. Which leads me to wonder, at what level was this strategy conceived? Was it senior management pressured by the board? Was it middle management? Or was it a design team, being economical with the truth, tasked with meeting a goal that could not be achieved otherwise, if it was to remain economically viable?
The tactic of removing the top man is purely PR, nothing to do with the actual problem. Also the media have grasped this as an opportunity to create great news, the facts are something else.
I have no interest in defending the actions of the VW group, what they have done is wrong, but I love to know exactly how it went wrong.
Very simplistically, I'd imagine it was case of a lot of pressure being applied from the top down to meet targets on engineering and design schedules. Schedule, quality (including, car performance, durability, legal compliance and the cost to manufacture and maintain) and costs (of engineering) would be key parameters. The engineers standard question, do want it soon, delivered cheaply or to be good? - pick any two. When management insists on all 3, the project becomes undeliverable. The engineers are forced to compromise. But the only thing the engineers can really "hide" is the third one - the quality. Their solution was not "good" in that it was illegal. But it let them deliver the engineering on time and budget. They rely on management to not look too hard to find the flaws in their work.
In this case, it seems both the engineers and management have failed. The engineers cheated, and the management tacitly approved of this cheating through poor corporate governance. Cognizant of the pressure they had applied, management may be uncomfortable with looking too closely, lest they find what they fear. They are also guilty of not shielding the underlying business from the squawking demands of short-term investors, but rather passing that pressure on to the engineers. It is is actually the key function of management to run block and let the people who do the real work just get on with it. (Forget strategy as a good thing for senior management to focus on - that's mostly just dumb luck. And don't get me started on corporate re-structuring)
Great post Winky.
Lets play the devils advocate for a moment, was Voltswagens subterfuge really so bad. Did they actually break the law, or regulations, is there actually a law in the US that states testing must be carried out under conditions that mimic real world driving conditions. Surely the blame lies with the US authorities for not testing while the vehicles where actually being driven on the road. The only criticism that can be made of VW is they where a little sneaky.
Lets play the devils advocate for a moment, was Voltswagens subterfuge really so bad. Did they actually break the law, or regulations, is there actually a law in the US that states testing must be carried out under conditions that mimic real world driving conditions. Surely the blame lies with the US authorities for not testing while the vehicles where actually being driven on the road. The only criticism that can be made of VW is they where a little sneaky.
I was wondering this, too. Who is holding the emissions authority or whatever they call it themselves to account? (NGAs? the fickle public?)
It's hard to imagine for me that this level of deceit occurred under approval from the most senior management level within VW. Which leads me to wonder, at what level was this strategy conceived? Was it senior management pressured by the board? Was it middle management? Or was it a design team, being economical with the truth, tasked with meeting a goal that could not be achieved otherwise, if it was to remain economically viable?
The tactic of removing the top man is purely PR, nothing to do with the actual problem. Also the media have grasped this as an opportunity to create great news, the facts are something else.
I have no interest in defending the actions of the VW group, what they have done is wrong, but I love to know exactly how it went wrong.
Very simplistically, I'd imagine it was case of a lot of pressure being applied from the top down to meet targets on engineering and design schedules. Schedule, quality (including, car performance, durability, legal compliance and the cost to manufacture and maintain) and costs (of engineering) would be key parameters. The engineers standard question, do want it soon, delivered cheaply or to be good? - pick any two. When management insists on all 3, the project becomes undeliverable. The engineers are forced to compromise. But the only thing the engineers can really "hide" is the third one - the quality. Their solution was not "good" in that it was illegal. But it let them deliver the engineering on time and budget. They rely on management to not look too hard to find the flaws in their work.
In this case, it seems both the engineers and management have failed. The engineers cheated, and the management tacitly approved of this cheating through poor corporate governance. Cognizant of the pressure they had applied, management may be uncomfortable with looking too closely, lest they find what they fear. They are also guilty of not shielding the underlying business from the squawking demands of short-term investors, but rather passing that pressure on to the engineers. It is is actually the key function of management to run block and let the people who do the real work just get on with it. (Forget strategy as a good thing for senior management to focus on - that's mostly just dumb luck. And don't get me started on corporate re-structuring)
It's sad, but...... Very few people in the world of corporate re-structuring understand what the word corporate really means,
I guess the fix will be to reprogram that "chip" on those diesel cars at a cost of probably a few tenth of a litter of fuel per 100 km. What the heck? In a year from now, all this will be forgotten and new scandals will pop-up from other car manufacturers.
It's hard to imagine for me that this level of deceit occurred under approval from the most senior management level within VW. Which leads me to wonder, at what level was this strategy conceived? Was it senior management pressured by the board? Was it middle management? Or was it a design team, being economical with the truth, tasked with meeting a goal that could not be achieved otherwise, if it was to remain economically viable?
The tactic of removing the top man is purely PR, nothing to do with the actual problem. Also the media have grasped this as an opportunity to create great news, the facts are something else.
I have no interest in defending the actions of the VW group, what they have done is wrong, but I love to know exactly how it went wrong.
Very simplistically, I'd imagine it was case of a lot of pressure being applied from the top down to meet targets on engineering and design schedules. Schedule, quality (including, car performance, durability, legal compliance and the cost to manufacture and maintain) and costs (of engineering) would be key parameters. The engineers standard question, do want it soon, delivered cheaply or to be good? - pick any two. When management insists on all 3, the project becomes undeliverable. The engineers are forced to compromise. But the only thing the engineers can really "hide" is the third one - the quality. Their solution was not "good" in that it was illegal. But it let them deliver the engineering on time and budget. They rely on management to not look too hard to find the flaws in their work.
In this case, it seems both the engineers and management have failed. The engineers cheated, and the management tacitly approved of this cheating through poor corporate governance. Cognizant of the pressure they had applied, management may be uncomfortable with looking too closely, lest they find what they fear. They are also guilty of not shielding the underlying business from the squawking demands of short-term investors, but rather passing that pressure on to the engineers. It is is actually the key function of management to run block and let the people who do the real work just get on with it. (Forget strategy as a good thing for senior management to focus on - that's mostly just dumb luck. And don't get me started on corporate re-structuring)
It's sad, but...... Very few people in the world of corporate re-structuring understand what the word corporate really means,
I'm using the term "restructuring" very generally to include organisational restructuring and reorganisation (you know, mucking around with org charts and position descriptions) as well as debt/equity/finance restructuring. I'm using the term "corporate" to mean restructuring as it applies to the affairs of the corporation.