c
 





 



 

c





 
 
 

 

By Hsu, Jamie C.

Publication: Research-Technology Management

Date: Monday, July 1 2002

You are viewing page ï

Competitive pressures have forced most companies (and countries) to increase their focus on
innovation. This pressure to innovate has increased the need for talented engineers and scientists--
not only in the rapidly evolving computer and communications industries, but in virtually every other
industry as well. The automobile industry, for example, has significantly expanded the electronics and
computer content on the vehicle, with applications today ranging from powertrain controls for improved
fuel economy and reduced emissions, to enhanced safety systems and chassis controls, to on-board
communications systems like OnStar.

During the last decade, to meet the ever-growing need for advanced technology, General Motors has
recruited a rich blend of international talent, with engineers and scientists from North and South
America, Europe, the Middle East, China, Taiwan, India, and Korea. This melting pot of technologists
has created a bubbling cauldron of exciting ideas that General Motors is applying to the development
of a vast array of product, technology and business innovations. In fact, one of the biggest benefits of
globalization for GM has been access to technology being developed around the world. Today, our
most advanced research programs, such as our fuel cell technology development, are being
conducted across several continents.

World Markets for Cars and Trucks

Contrary to what some might think in the midst of the computer and communications technology
upheaval, the automobile industry today is a growth industry. Only about 12 percent of the earth's 6
billion people enjoy the benefits of vehicle ownership (1), and industry growth remains positive at
about 20 percent per decade, with the potential for global annual sales of 65 to 70 million vehicles by
2010. Most of this expansion will occur in emerging markets such as China, India, Russia, and Brazil.

Today, the developing countries account for only a small percentage of the total number of vehicles
sold each year. In 10 years, this percentage is expected to increase substantially. China alone could
account for as much as one-fifth of the expected growth in the emerging markets. This data point
alone explains why GM has taken such an aggressive business position in China.
Even as the automobile business grows, it is also becoming more competitive. Currently, there is
worldwide overcapacity in the industry--and this has forced manufacturers to contain and even reduce
costs. In the United States, for instance, the average monthly vehicle payment as a percentage of
household income has dropped from 12.5 percent in 1980 to only 7.5 percent today--a 40 percent
decrease. As a colleague once pointed out, at about $6 per pound a car costs almost the same as a
Big Mac. This cost pressure has forced all manufacturers to reduce structural costs, seek new
markets, reduce cycle time for new product development, form alliances with other manufacturers and
business partners, and develop products with more innovative styling and content (2).Thus, the
industry is giving more to its customers for less. Increased value combined with a healthy economy
helps explain record sales in the U.S. during the last couple of years.

Although U.S. sales have surprised industry analysts, the growth forecast for both Europe and the
U.S. is low--a couple of percentage points increase per year on average--compared with the much
larger growth quoted earlier for the emerging markets. While customers in the U.S. have been
purchasing large and luxury cars, sport utility vehicles and trucks, the growth markets overseas will be
dominated by smaller vehicles, generally with low feature content. Because the majority of customers
in these markets have low incomes (compared to workers in the developed world), the primary driving
force for vehicle purchase is simple--the need for basic transportation. Unfortunately, the small,
inexpensive vehicle is a challenge for most manufacturers, with profit margins slim at best.
Opportunities for profitabililty increase as volumes increase, but it is likely that numerous product
offerings from a number of manufacturers will keep volumes for individual products too low.

This product segmentation has been under way for some time in mature markets; in the U.S., there
are more than 600 different models for customers to choose. While each of the Big Three (GM, Ford
and DaimlerChrysler) once sold hundreds of thousands of units of a single model, it is very difficult for
any manufacturer to do that today in North America or Western Europe. Consequently, a critical issue
facing all manufacturers as they move into newly emerging markets is how to become profitable as
quickly as possible in spite of the fact that "basic" cars and trucks offer little room for profit margin,
especially if volumes are constrained. Based upon the recent flurry of alliance activity within the auto
industry, it is clear that most manufacturers believe that at least part of the answer is partnering. In the
quest to develop the right vehicles for newly emerging markets, strategic alliances afford many
opportunities for sharing of components and architectures and leveraging synergies.

Global Automotive Alliances

During the past few years, the auto industry has undergone major structural changes to an extent not
seen since the early formation of the industry. There are now a number of major alliance groups,
although there are also individual companies that will probably remain independent, such as Honda
and BMW. The GM alliance network includes General Motors, Opel/Vauxhall/ Holden, Saab, Fiat Auto,
Isuzu, Fuji Heavy Industries (Subaru), and Suzuki. Taken together, these companies currently sell
more than 13 million vehicles on an annual basis. Major alliance groups have also been created by
Ford, DaimlerChrysler and others. The current situation within the global industry continues to be fluid;
additional mergers, acquisitions and/or alliances may yet occur. For example, GM recently announced
plans to take an ownership position in a new company that will be formed from selected assets of
Korea's Daewoo Motor.

While GM has 100-percent equity ownership of some of its key units--such as Opel and Saab--the
company has used an approach that is more akin to a "loose confederation" in joining recently with
other partners such as Suzuki, Fuji and Fiat Auto. GM has a minority equity stake in each of these
companies. In addition, GM has major joint ventures in both China and Russia.

An important incentive for GM to form alliances with companies such as Suzuki is to more quickly
develop a presence in the Asian markets. It takes a long time to start from scratch in a new market. It
may take even longer to create brand equity for a new product in spite of the fact that the
manufacturer might have a strong corporate brand. Many of GM's new partners have a rich portfolio of
products that are smaller and lower-priced than the typical entry-level vehicles sold in the United
States and, therefore, are better suited for emerging markets. The GM-Suzuki alliance is a win-win for
both partners. GM has not only gained increased market presence, but also has access to Suzuki
small car platforms and its low-cost manufacturing expertise. The tie-up gives Suzuki access to GM
advanced technologies, particularly alternative propulsion and hybrid systems, entry to the growing
Latin American market, and worldwide component sourcing.

As noted above, automotive alliances afford the opportunity for component and architecture sharing.
For example, Fiat and GM have formed a joint venture to develop engines for both companies.
Successful platform synergies are more complex (and more difficult to achieve). By using a well-
defined "bandwidth" for architectural dimensions of the body and by imposing constraints on the
chassis, it is possible to develop several models from a given platform. These models will appear
different from one another in terms of styling and may well have very different features, especially in
the interior of the car.

A key advantage of platform sharing is that a common body manufacturing system can be used to
produce all the models. Obviously, this is easy to accomplish for body-on-frame vehicles, but it can be
done even with unibody construction. As a result, two alliance partners can develop different models
tailored for different markets but share many of the upfront engineering and development costs and
use common manufacturing and assembly equipment. In effect, this is a way to generate larger
volumes, from a single product development investment. The challenge, however, is to make the
different models truly unique, so that customers do not feel their purchase is a "look-alike" with another
product. All manufacturers are getting very good at this, notwithstanding some early setbacks in the
U.S. when the Big Three first switched from full-frame to unibody construction to reduce the weight of
their vehicles.

Research and Development

Another important incentive driving automotive alliances is the need for the auto companies to reduce
their research and development costs. GM is working with its alliance partners on more than 50 joint
technology development projects, ranging from pedestrian protection and 42-volt electrical architecture
to all-wheel-drive and clean diesel engines. This has resulted in savings and cost avoidance in the
millions of dollars.

R&D is critical today because manufacturers are under tremendous pressure to provide more
innovative products. Customers continue to raise the bar with respect to styling, quality, reliability, and
safety. At the same time, manufacturers face difficult technical challenges on the energy and
environmental front. They must make continual improvements in vehicle fuel economy and reductions
in tailpipe emissions everywhere in the world.

While there is more improvement to be squeezed out of the conventional internal combustion engine,
manufacturers are looking ahead to hybrid vehicle technology and, ultimately, to a hydrogen-based
fuel-cell vehicle. The development costs and infrastructure changes necessary to take the step to fuel
cell technology are staggering, so it makes sense for auto manufacturers to team up and share
knowledge in order to move the industry as a whole ahead faster.

In addition to the equity alliances mentioned, GM has formed research partnerships with other
manufacturers, suppliers, universities, and governmental agencies, many of which are mentioned in
Refs 1 and 2. These research alliances cover such topics as advanced internal combustion engine
development, fuel cell technology, advanced chassis systems, electronics and communications
systems, and many others. They are truly global, involving companies and universities in Canada,
Europe, Japan, China, and the Middle East.

By pulling together the talents and resources from this global R&D network, we have been able to
reduce redundancy, accelerate ongoing development, and jump-start new development. Our 42-volt
electrical architecture program is an excellent example of this kind of global collaboration. It includes
all of our alliance partners and key suppliers. Instead of more than 10 separate projects, we now have
one single program with clearly defined technology roadmaps and deliverables for each partner.

Of course, to launch such a collaboration successfully requires

Of course, to launch such a collaboration successfully requires the companies involved to overcome
differences in culture, language, business practices, and engineering approaches. Our experience in
the last few years with more than 50 projects has taught us that a clearly articulated and agreed-upon
"statement of work" can alleviate many potential issues down the road. With practice and the growth of
mutual trust and understanding, such detailed documentation becomes easier to achieve. In fact,
diversity has become a very positive factor. Differing viewpoints often yield a rich field of approaches
to consider in the project definition phase. We believe a few mutual wins will accelerate additional
collaboration immensely.

Globalization is Risky Business

In spite of the significant growth opportunities, corporations face considerable uncertainty as they
move into new markets around the world. Anthony Giddens identified the most unsettling aspect of
globalization when he referred to its being "anarchic" (3). In one's home market, risks are well known
and tabulated. But today, when a company enters an emerging market, how does its chief financial
officer measure the risks? If we knew the answer to that question, we would be sought after by every
major corporation in the world! But given GM's recent experiences with globalization, we would like to
offer some insights into some of the hazards that every company will need to comprehend and deal
with as directly as possible as it globalizes.

The first and perhaps the most important risk involves the economics of globalization. Funding product
introductions in new markets takes capital that initially must come from existing operations. During
good times in the home country, this is easy to do, but the current economic slowdown in the U.S. has
put tremendous pressure on companies that are trying to expand operations abroad. The time scale
associated with new ventures exacerbates this problem--it may take years to recoup the initial
investment and become profitable in a new market. As we mentioned earlier, many new markets for
autos and trucks are countries in which the customers are interested primarily in basic transportation--
products that provide thin profit margins, which further complicates the return on investment picture.

In addition, local economic uncertainties will be a factor in many new markets. Unstable currencies
and rapidly changing inflation rates are serious problems for investors in new markets. These
problems are extremely difficult (or impossible) to predict, and companies may have little influence in
resolving them. The economic issues in themselves are not new, but the rapid flow of capital
characterized by Thomas Friedman as the "Electronic Herd" adds a new twist (4). For instance, a
positive business case for a new market investment can evaporate just as a new manufacturing facility
has been built.

Political forces add to the economic risks. Obvious examples are China and Russia, countries in which
the relationships between the U.S. and the national government can have a major impact on U.S.
businesses operating in those countries. Most governments act rationally and are therefore fairly
predictable, but new "political forces" with significant power are emerging--and, as suggested by
Giddens, constitute an anarchic force. They are "nongovernmental organizations," or NGOs. Adam
Roberts of The Economist says that there are 30,000 international NGOs (5).
In the U.S., almost 8 percent of all workers are employed by nonprofit groups of some sort. While
many such organizations have existed for years, only a few achieved enough "brand recognition" to
have any power. But with the Internet, the NGOs can now communicate easily and effectively within
their own organization or country (6). They have also increased their power exponentially, thanks to
Reed's law for the value of the Internet (7). Roberts notes that some NGOs--including Oxfam, CARE,
Greenpeace, and Amnesty International--are already more influential than some smaller governments.
As corporations continue to globalize, they will need to pay attention to the NGOs. As the international
brand recognition of a corporation grows, so will the potential of the NGOs to affect that brand.

Despite the many significant benefits afforded by access to the Worldwide Web, there is a dark side to
the Internet and other new communication technologies. In the U.S., Internet fraud has grown to more
than $6 billion annually and is expected to reach $1 trillion in a few years. A major problem for the FBI
in dealing with this problem is that the perpetrators can be outside the United States and yet cause
major damage inside the U.S. or inside the computer network of a major corporation. As corporations
expand their computer networks to reach overseas units and alliance partners, they will have to be
certain that their "cyber walls" are secure. To deal with this growing worldwide cyber problem, the FBI
now has offices in 44 countries around the world.

The Energy Challenge

Another major risk--energy--has been with us for some time and has always had a global element to it.
Short-term interruptions that increase prices can have a significant impact on vehicle sales and usage,
as we saw during the energy crises of the 1970s and the recent mini-crisis in the United States. As
different nations take differing approaches to energy conservation and environmental issues, life for
the automobile manufacturer becomes more complicated and costly. As mentioned earlier, auto
companies and their alliance partners benefit by sharing components (including engines) and
architectures. But if fuel costs and quality and environmental regulations differ greatly from country to
country, such synergies become difficult and more costly to achieve. International harmonization of
vehicle regulations with respect to energy, the environment and safety would benefit the manufacturer
and ultimately the customer.

A final issue is differing social and cultural norms among the nations. Corporations need to be "good
citizens" in the countries in which they do business, and this is going to take more than just careful
attention to marketing and advertising. The successful corporation of the future will have an
internationally diverse management team. Simply putting American-born executives in the foreign
office, even those with outstanding interpersonal skills, cannot accomplish what will be necessary in
the long term. There will be a growing demand for executives who speak the language fluently,
understand the local culture, and help the corporation accommodate regional needs. In fact, the best
way to help accelerate the globalization process is to recruit and empower an international executive
team.

References

(1.) Burns, Larry. "Vision for Automobility 2020-2050," presented at the Department of Energy
Conference: E-Vision 2000, Washington D.C., October t2, 2000.

(2.) Howell, Larry J. "Innovation in the Automobile Industry: A New Era." Chemical Innovation, Vol. 30,
No. 11, Nov. 2000, pp. 16-21.

(3.) Giddens, Anthony. Runaway World, Routledge, New York, 2000.

(4.) Friedman, Thomas L. The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Anchor Books, A Division of Random House,
New York, 1999.

(5.) Roberts, Adam. "NGOs: New Gods Overseas." The Economist Publications, The World in 2001,
2000, pp. 47-48.

(6.) Appelman, Hilary. "I Scream, You Scream: Consumers Vent Over the Net." The New York Times,
March 4, 2001.

(7.) Anderson, Alun. "The Mathematics of Mayhem." The Economist Publications, The World in 2001,
The Economist Group, London, England, 2000, pp. 117-118.

(8.) Rohwedder, Cecilie, and David Wessel. "Despite Proud Past, German Universities Fail by Many
Measures." The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 26, 2001.

(9.) Champion, Marc. "Britain Feels Pressure as Public Services Continue to Decay." The Wall Street
Journal, March 9, 2001.

(10.) Fuerbringer, Jonathan. "Hedging Your Bets? Look Homeward Investor." The New York Times,
February 4, 2001.

(11.) "The Cutting Edge." The Economist, Feb. 24, 2001, p. 80.

(12.) Rodrik, Dani. "Sense and Nonsense in the Globalization Debate," in Globalization and the
Challenges of a New Century, A Reader, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 2000.

RELATED ARTICLE: Enablers of globalization--technology, education, economics, politics.

Almost 20 years ago, I remember sitting in the audience at an American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics meeting and listening to an executive from General Dynamics Corporation explain how
his company was going to sell its rocket launch capability to put commercial satellites into orbit. I
thought the speaker had lost his mind! Actually though, he was years ahead of his time, at least from
the standpoint of having developed a sound business case for what he was proposing, as there were
then no customers for the service.

Today, I have a handheld Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system purchased for a little over $100,
which I use to mark good areas for finding morel mushrooms in the Michigan north woods. I drive a
vehicle equipped with OnStar, GM's in-vehicle communications system, which uses GPS technology
to provide a host of services. It will alert the nearest emergency center in the event of an airbag
deployment in my Saab; it will also track my car if stolen, and it offers contact with a real person at an
OnStar command center who can help me with route guidance or any concierge service I might wish.

Thanks to those commercial satellites, coupled with all the new communications technologies coming
on stream, people around the world are connecting at a mind-boggling rate. Cellular phones are
ubiquitous around the globe--and we do not even know yet where the Internet will take us. The
communications entertainment and business opportunities it provides are truly astounding.

An article in The Economist's The World in 2001, highlights the "connection" power of the Internet (7)
for a one-to-many broadcast system, e.g., radio or television, the "value" (for instance, of a commercial
ad) of the network scales with N, the size of the audience. For two-way communication, namely the
telephone system, every individual has the opportunity to communicate with N-1 other people. The
power or value of the telephone network scales as Metcalfe's law: N [left arrow] (N - 1), or [N.sup.2] -
N. The Internet adds the effect of individual communication and the potential to communicate with all
other users, e.g., through a website, with the added potential to form subgroups of any size. With the
Internet, according to David Reed, former chief scientist of the Lotus Development Corporation, it is
possible to form the following number of groups: [2.sup.N] - N - 1. Thus, the value of the Internet
grows exponentially with the number of users, giving it vastly more "value" as the number of users
increases. Moreover, unlike the telephone, the Internet can reach users all over the world for the same
cost (since cost is usually based on a monthly subscription fee that does not increase with increased
use--at least, at present).

Clearly, communication technology is a critical element in facilitating globalization, but many other
technologies are important as well. Technology developed in the U.S. and Europe can help other
nations advance technologically without having to "reinvent" in critical areas. For instance, GM's
market presence in China has come with the added benefit of technology infusion. Two specific
examples are vehicle safety and emissions technologies. General Motors has invested heavily in
safety and emissions research over the years, producing numerous industry firsts. This tremendous
wealth of knowledge can be readily (and quickly) transferred for application in developing economies.

Education
The university system is making a contribution to globalization as well. Research universities in the
United States have established world dominance in many fields of study, including many engineering
disciplines such as electrical engineering and computer science. Meanwhile, some research
universities in other countries have been unable to keep up--for example, recent Wall Street Journal
articles cited problems in Germany (8) and England (9) in this regard.

While there certainly are other good universities around the world, the attraction of the world's top
students to U.S. schools remains strong. Although most of these international students prefer to stay
in the U.S. after they complete their education because of the many exciting employment opportunities
that this country offers, in time, as more high-tech job opportunities develop elsewhere, larger
numbers will return to their home countries. Many of these U.S.-educated students will become
influential in their own nations, and the tolerance for and positive aspects of diversity they experienced
in school will pay dividends in years to come. I believe the mixing of engineers and scientists from
around the world that occurs at U.S. universities will have an important long-term stabilizing effect on
international relations. This melting pot of technologists promotes understanding and tolerance among
nations and contributes enormously to the stability of a global world. Equally important, it is helping to
accelerate the pace of research and development.

Economics

In addition to advances in technology and the continued influence of the U.S. university system, other
factors related to economics have also contributed to globalization. Thanks to airline deregulation,
which began more than 20 years ago in the U.S., Americans think nothing of taking a flight to Europe
for a vacation--in fact, the fare might be less from Detroit to London than from Detroit to San
Francisco. The lower fares in the U.S. have pushed down airfares worldwide, as foreign-based airlines
seek to remain competitive. Europeans now travel to Disney World so frequently that a special airport
was built in Sanford, Florida, to accommodate the customs needs of European charter flights. The
lower costs afforded by deregulation are now being further decreased as the Internet reduces
transaction costs with customers flocking to Travelocity.com, eBay, and other sites to secure the best
deals on airfares.

And although I am not an expert in economics, I cannot help but notice that the financial markets have
gone global. Money today flows easily around the world. Watching the tracks of the "Electronic Herd,"
as Thomas Friedman calls it (4), is fascinating and, for investors, sometimes painful. When the Herd
decides to abandon the markets of a country or region, the effects can be devastating, as we have
seen in Mexico, Asia, and most recently in Turkey. Those who follow the financial markets have
certainly noted the effect recently of the Herd's abandonment of tech stocks all around the world.

Investors are frequently advised to diversify--which means having some portion of their investments in
equities outside the United States. Yet a recent The New York Times article argues that foreign
investment may not be as diversified as it once was (10). According to Ibbotson Associates, stock
market correlation between the U.S. and the rest of the world, including emerging markets, was 0.765
in the year 2000! In 1993, the correlation was 0.145, while in 1979 it was only 0.07--almost totally
uncorrelated! Although the authors of the article point out that markets tend to be more correlated
during an economic downturn, especially when the downturn is primarily in one sector (e.g., tech
stocks), nevertheless, these high correlations also reflect increased interaction and mutual
interdependence among corporations around the world.

Economists and government agencies have been attempting to develop more accurate metrics for
globalization. Recently, The Economist looked at foreign direct investment (FDI) as one measure (11).
Defining FDI as more than capital, The Economist includes contacts, and managerial and
technological knowledge--which it calls "the cutting edge of globalization." Global FDI, now at about $6
trillion, is projected to rise to around $10 trillion by 2005, according to The Economist. The U.S. leads
the world with an inflow of about 26 percent of total FDI; Great Britian is next at 9.3 percent, followed
by Germany at 7.8 percent. Interestingly, China is in 4th place at 6.5 percent, although this is not a
surprise to anyone in the auto industry because of its emergence as an important growth market.

Politics

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War certainly have had a tremendous
influence on globalization. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 has been called the first television
revolution because, as people around the globe witnessed it on TV in real time, the groundswell in the
Soviet Union's satellite countries grew to proportions that could not be stopped by any force. Since the
Iron Curtain has come down, the former Soviet republics, including Russia, have begun to integrate
with the rest of the world, and the unification of Germany is progressing at a rapid rate. Unfortunately,
we also have seen problems arising from the lack of stable local governments after the Soviet Union's
demise.

Is globalization good or bad? How you answer that question depends on who you are and where you
live. While it seems reasonable to assume that the economics of globalization should generally
provide more for most people around the world, there are losers as well as winners. For example, one
effect of globalization is that it enables companies to use economies of scale to lower costs to
consumers. But consider that effect locally--not everyone in the small town in southern Illinois where I
grew up benefited when K-Mart moved in--some people lost their jobs and small businesses could not
compete.

Of course, new jobs are usually created as others are eliminated. In fact, many economists conclude
that there is a net positive effect, but people must continue to increase skills to remain employable in
the face of change. Not everyone can or will do that--so why wouldn't the owners of a small business
in the Middle East or Asia be concerned when Wal-Mart or McDonald's move in? The globalization
"push back" seems to be focused against the western nations, particularly the U.S., partly because
many of the brands come from this country.

DaniRodrik notes that in the markets for goods, services and labor, international trade creates an
arbitrage--the potential to produce in one place at one price and sell at another place, perhaps at a
higher price (12). In effect, the employers can move abroad, while most of their employees cannot.
The trade arbitrage creates another kind of arbitrage--an arbitrage in national norms and social
institutions. A good example is the rethinking that is going on in Japan about the social contract for
lifelong employment that has been a hallmark of the major Japanese companies. The same issue is
raised by labor unions in the U.S. and European countries. Rodrik maintains that there is a relationship
between the extent of the trade a nation does and government spending on social protection aimed at
countering any negative effects. For example, countries that have historically relied heavily on trade
with other nations, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, spend more on social programs that ensure
the protection of their citizens against the downside that might include unemployment.

The politics remain volatile on the subject of globalization. We have seen this even in North America--
with worldwide coverage of the demonstrations at the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle
and more recently at the Summit of the Americas meeting in Montreal. As Rodrik notes, it will be
important for nations and corporations to move ahead carefully to ensure that globalization progresses
in a way that enlists the support of as many of the peoples of the world as possible, and in ways that
will benefit them. This may require the more difficult process of rationalizing social norms on a global
basis. This is certain to be a lengthy process, and there is a question of whether it is possible. But it
may be necessary, given that many problems facing the world today--such as the preservation of the
earth's natural resources--could best be addressed from the perspective of the global community.
Unfortunately, the globalization process is not "under control." Anthony Giddens states the problem
very well in his book, Runaway World (3):

As the changes ... gather weight, they are creating something that has never existed before, a global
cosmopolitan society. We are the first generation to live in this society, whose contours we can as yet
only dimly see. It is shaking up our existing ways of life, no matter where we happen to be. This is not-
-at least at the moment--a global order driven by collective human will. Instead, it is emerging in an
anarchic, haphazard fashion, carried along by a mixture of influences.

This is an extremely important point in considering the challenges and risks faced by corporations
today as they work toward creating a truly global business enterprise.--Larry Howell

Larry Howell was executive director of science at General Motors Research & Development prior to
his retirement in 2001. He oversaw the work of the six science labs that make up GM's central
research facility. He formerly managed GM's body and vehicle integration and engineering mechanics
research programs. Before joining GM, he served as principal researcher assessing the structural
dynamics performance of the Space Shuttle while working for General Dynamics Corporation. He
earned his B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from the
University of Illinois. Larryjam44@aol.com

Jamie Hsu is executive director of technology management at General Motors Corporation, Warren,
Michigan. He is responsible for GM's global technology strategy, assessment, planning, leveraging,
and technology collaboration with GM's alliance partners. A member of the National Research
Council's Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design and the MIT Center for Innovation in
Product Development (CIPD) Governing Board, he also has acted as advisor for MIT's Leaders for
Manufacturing Program, the University of Michigan's Manufacturing Initiatives, and the National Center
of Manufacturing Sciences. He was born in China and grew up in Taiwan, earning a bachelor's degree
in civil engineering from the National Taiwan University and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in solid
mechanics from Brown University.


  
    
 
   
V