Before I climb up on the soapbox, I'd like to start by saying I'd be very interested in hearing all of your opinions on what is critical to BMW's future.
-----
Climbing up now . . .
I have grown increasingly concerned over the percieved and perhaps real movement of BMW away from a company focused on functional (engineering) superiority towards a company focused on form (style) superiority.
The causes for this, if it indeed is the case, may be complex and many. For a start, it is possilbe the Quandt family and the BMW board may feel lucky to even have ANY company after the Rover affair. It is further possilbe that the fallout from the Rover affair is still being felt in the sense that key Management positions are filled with "Financial" experts rather than "Car Guys". There is a time when financial experts are the 'right' guys to run a company, although minimizing that time has to be the goal of any company hoping to innovate, lead, and grow.
(An old proverb says there are three people who should never run a company: (1) A drunk -- because he will sacrifice everything for his own needs, (2) A guy having an affair with his Secretary -- because he will sacrifice everything for his own foibles, and (3) An Accountant --- because he will sacrifice your customer base in the name of efficiency.)
The extend to which BMW is risking its customer base to design and financial considerations is difficult to tell. On the one hand, there are innovations like valvetronic and VANOS. On the other hand, there's flame surfacing, the 'bustle', and other 'innovations' intended to take us where we don't want to go.
The first category builds on BMW's core competence as the leading engine builder in the world. This did not come easy. BMW has led engine development since its inception as an aircraft engine builder. The original 328 wasn't great due to a superior chassis or aerodynamics -- it had a superior engine.
In time, BMW also learned the critical value of putting that superior engine technology to use through a well-tuned chassis. Witness the success of the 2002 as the best tool of all time to educate Americans on how far ahead BMW was in chassis-engine dynamics. Consider further the origin of "M" and everything that has flowed from that. In sum, what one has is about 3 generations of focused effort on being the best at something, and that something is more broadly desirable today than it ever was. Seemingly every other automotive OEM benchmarks based upon BMW when it comes to engine performance, chassis dynamics, and passive safety technology.
Contrast this rich history and focus with some of the things now moving it away from its 'conservative form-follows-function' roots. Indeed, BMW loves technology, and when it comes to safety technology ---- BMW is a leader. Why? Because safety tech is passive. It does its job and you, as the driver, need not be involved. It's like insurance.
Now consider I-drive. High-tech, but what does it suffer from? It is not passive. It is easier to operate for some things, more difficult for others. When such a system was first considered for use on the platform BMW sells to its oldest market segment, did anyone consider the potential challenge of 'negative transfer'.
Negative Transfer is a phrase pychologists use to explain how a highly learned technique can lead to a negative outcome when the same technique is applied to a new system. Good examples are provided by aircraft controls. If a pilot flies for 20 years and every aircraft he ever flew had throttles that go forward for more power and back for less --- consider the liklihood of mistakes if one reverses that pattern on a new plane.) Changes in patterned human behaviour is risky. Changes in patterned human behaviour of older people can at times be . . . foolish.
Although BMWs efforts with I-drive may be noble, much more work (and consumer understanding) is needed. The concept of less clutter would have been better achieved also were it not for all those seat controls on the center console. What an incredible mixed message that sends.
But, bigger issues are at hand. Is the company moving away from its conservative form-follows-function roots? Perhaps the 'bustle' trunk is illustrative. Have you guys read C. Bangle's comments on his rationale supporting the design. I've read it, and it makes no sense from an engineering standpoint. The 'golfbag' defense holds no water.
Now consider flame-surfacing from an engineering standpoint. The way it is discussed, one would assume 'efficiency' is implied. Right? Flames must flow in the most efficient, aerodynamic patterns, right? Hence, 'flame-surfaced' vehicles would be expect to have what? Lower coefficients of drag, right?
So --- why is the new 7er less efficient through the air than the new Lexus flagship. Can anyone put their fingers on a half dozen article naming the chief designer of the Lexus, his or her design philosophy, etc., etc. What does this tell us about flame-surfacing? Is is used on the BMW-Williams Cars?
I could write a whole Case Study on this topic, but I think it can be summed up as follows:
Any company can really only convey one message. It's choice of message (and its messenger) had better be cautiously and deliberately considered. The message had better convey the company's raison-de-etre, its core competency, and its leadership role in a field meaningful to its customers and potential customers.
BMW needs to get its engine-buildiers, chassis-tuners, and safety-experts back in the spotlight, first in the boardroom, and then in the media.
All else is folly.
7-time BMW owner since 1982. Will look elsewhere if the new 3er and 5er go the way of the 7.
Ausgang
'01 330i