Over the past few weeks I’ve seen more announcements of job cuts across parts of the automotive industry in Europe and beyond. Whenever this happens, the discussion usually revolves around Chinese competition, electrification, tariffs and market conditions but after more than 13 years working in vehicle ergonomics, I suspect something deeper is happening instead.
Many legacy OEMs have become exceptionally good at refining processes and reviewing work but surprisingly poor at solving problems.
Over the years, I’ve seen ergonomists who cannot interrogate a CAD model themselves, run a quick RAMSIS assessment or produce a vehicle package proposal, and therefore depend on multiple other teams just to answer simple questions.
I’ve seen teams spend more time creating PowerPoint slides and burndown charts than engineering solutions, and specialists who know everything about their own attribute but very little about its interaction with vehicle packaging, safety, manufacturing, aerodynamics, NVH or cost.
Somewhere along the way, parts of the industry stopped developing engineers and started developing reviewers.
The irony is that modern vehicle development increasingly demands the opposite. Vehicles are systems. Improving ingress/egress may affect visibility. Improving visibility may affect aerodynamics. Improving aerodynamics may affect vehicle packaging. Every decision creates trade-offs, and an automotive ergonomist should understand enough of the wider system to navigate those trade-offs and contribute to the solution rather than simply report the problem.
The fastest teams I’ve worked with are not necessarily those with the most specialists. They are the teams where specialists have enough breadth to investigate problems, understand competing constraints and contribute directly to the solution.
This is one of the reasons I’m not surprised that some Chinese OEMs can move from concept to production in less than three years while many legacy manufacturers still require significantly longer.
Speed is rarely about working harder. More often, it’s about reducing organisational friction. And friction accumulates wherever responsibility for identifying a problem becomes separated from responsibility for solving it.
Perhaps that’s a conversation worth having before the next round of job cuts.