Cost concessions. Quality concerns. Job security. Compensation. Two months ago, Automotive Industries magazine encouraged its readers to speak their minds by participating in a survey on these and other pressing topics. The "rules of engagement" dictated that nothing was off-limits, everything was on the record and confidentiality would be assured.

The unprecedented response to our e-mail-based invitation buried our survey department in an avalanche of completed questionnaires and an outpouring of emotions and controversy. Thousands of comments littered the 220+ page report with input from interested readers spanning five continents.

Section One identifies our respondents as being 60 percent supplier employees and 40 percent OEM. The responses are also "engineering heavy," with nearly three fourths of participants either working as engineers or as engineering managers. Corporate officials contribute a healthy 14 percent of our responses with the remainder coming from an assortment of other titles and positions.

Qualifications, as outlined in the charts on this page, show a highly experienced workforce, but one that changes jobs or positions within a company fairly regularly. It also shows an engineering force that is very stable, with only a small amount of crossover from industries like aerospace and electronics.

In our general comment section, respondents in all categories make it clear that there is growing concern about increasing their level of responsibility but not having enough tools to get the job done. One OEM engineering manager states, "I'm in that uncomfortable stage where I have a lot of responsibilities, both management and design, but not a lot of authority and not nearly enough time." Another company official laments, "Too much stress and not enough resources to do the job expected of me."

Engineers in particular cite several cases of not receiving credit for their efforts, especially in the case of supplier engineers. The sentiment is that the OEMs tend to drop problems in the laps of the suppliers, grill them for answers then take credit for the solution. Ironically, a few OEM engineers cite the need to "handhold" their supply base as an impediment to problem solving.

One area where engineers, managers and officials completely agree is the amount of lime wasted in filling out forms, papers, requests and reports. One supplier manager likens his responsibilities to "secretarial work," while an engineer outlines the same problem in greater detail. "This industry is lost in a paper mill," he complains. "My employer has engulfed his engineers in filling out process papers. The engineers are working on the level of clerks. There's no engineering degree needed to perform this job. I worry about how safe my job is."

Section II: Job Stability, Satisfaction and Preferences

When it comes to job stability and satisfaction, it's clear that "pecking order" has everything to do with a sense of security. Corporate officials are nearly twice as likely to feel optimistic about the stability of their positions as are engineers. Similarly, officials are twice as likely to rate their raises as excellent and half as likely to believe layoffs are coming. Still, the general consensus about stability is strong (see charts) considering today's fragile economy.

The most evenly divided question in Section II asks respondents if they have a preference for working for an OEM or supplier. The split gives a slim 51/49 percent nod in favor of suppliers. But in a follow-up question that asks if readers prefer to work for a foreign or domestic company, a surprising 79 percent favor domestic. And that percentage is consistent with virtually every job classification.

Ironically, in past articles featured in Automotive Industries, we received the opposite feedback from people, who said they would much prefer to work with foreign automakers, particularly Japanese, because they felt there was more commitment to workers and greater stability.

Among those who prefer an automaker as a potential employer, General Motors is a two-to-one favorite over similarly ranked Ford, Toyota and DaimlerChrysler. And those automakers are a two-to-one preference over BMW and Honda. Beyond that, there are only token mentions of other Japanese or European automakers. A fairly large contingent cites "no preference," except that they work for an OE instead of a supplier.

In giving their reasons for selecting one company over another, it's clear that leadership has a lot to do with GM'S sudden popularity. "Ford and DaimlerChrysler are in turmoil," says one OEM corporate official. "GM appears to have the strongest leadership at this time." Several others shorten their explanations to a compelling two-word answer. "Bob Lutz."

Those who favor working for a supplier have strong preferences that lean toward megasuppliers. Delphi Automotive Systems generates the most votes across all job descriptions by a wide margin. But of total respondents, many mention Johnson Controls, Lear, Magna, Dana and Bosch. Many engineers add TRW, Siemens and Visteon to their preferred list, although corporate officials rarely select those companies.

Supplier companies tend to be chosen based on a perception of a better work environment with comments such as, "Good atmosphere," "Cares about its people" and even, "I'm allowed to do my thing."

There is also a belief that supplier companies are more open to new ideas and innovation than OEMs, a notion nicely summarized by an engineer who moved from an OEM to the supply side. "When I worked at Ford my opinion didn't count Only my bosses' opinions counted. Here I can make an impact in the design and decision making process."

Section III: Quality and Cost

The multi-billion-dollar question that's haunting the auto industry is whether mandated cost cuts are hurting vehicle quality. Roughly 84 percent of our respondents confirm that their company has either been asked or will ask for price rollbacks. Of those that have asked, over 70 percent confirm that they have received price breaks. However, the impact of those cuts on quality has not been fully realized.

As the charts indicate, only a small percentage of our readers believe price cuts affect quality in a positive way. Roughly one-third feel it has a negative effect, while another third feels it depends on the product. Those numbers are at odds with the same readers' comments about their actual experience with products from their suppliers. Only 12 percent see a decline in the quality of goods supplied to them even after recent price rollbacks. And fully one-fourth of those surveyed think quality improved; nearly half feel it is unaffected.

But judging by some of the comments, reductions in quality may not be immediately apparent And some products, particularly mature or commodity parts are ticking time bombs for quality shortfalls.

"Complex items that require long-term development can be hurt by knee-jerk cost-cutting mandates," warns a supplier engineer. "The reality," says an OEM engineering manager, "is that some products can have lower cost without reducing quality and others can't. But we as engineers don't make that call. It comes from a finance guy and we don't always agree with that."

As for the scope of givebacks, about 80 percent of price cuts range between one and five percent says our survey. And 15 percent of our respondents put cost cuts between six and 10 percent. A small percentage of readers claim cuts are even higher.

"Everybody wants R&D for nothing," says one supplier official. "We gave back 35 percent on the last contract." And several supplier engineers lament. "DaimlerChrysler took 15 percent. The Germans are brutal."

A surprise response from the survey comes in the form of our readers' opinions about which suppliers provide the best quality. For years we've been hearing from various industry sources that Japanese suppliers deliver a higher quality product than their North American, European or transplant counterparts.

Not so according to our survey.

Fully one half of our OEM respondents say traditional North American suppliers have the best quality, followed by European suppliers at 21 percent and Asian suppliers at 19 percent. Interestingly, corporate officials place European suppliers and North American suppliers on near-equal footing in terms of quality, but engineers prefer domestic suppliers by a margin of over two-to-one.

The numbers are very similar when the roles are reversed and suppliers discuss which kind of OEM offers the most support in building a quality product. Again, traditional North American OEMs cany 50 percent of the vote while Asian and European OEMs have 20 and 15 percent. Respectively.

Section IV: Online business

Survey Methodology

This survey was conducted via targeted e-mail in January 2002. Surveys
were sent directly to select Automotive Industries subscribers, but
respondents were allowed to forward the survey to others within their
own company. A two-week response cut-off was established, resulting in
1,912 completed questionnaires.

For organizational purposes, the survey was divided into four sections.
Results were tabulated electronically.

              How many Years Have You  How Many Years Have You
                  Worked in This       Worked at your Current
                     Industry?                  Job?

More than 15           52.0%                    15.8%
11 to 15               17.2%                     9.6%
5 to 10                21.1%                    28.6%
Less than 5             9.6%                    45.9%

Note: Table made from bar graph
If You Have Engineering Experience Prior to Your Current Job, Which
Industry Was It In? (*)

Automotive/Truck                  51.1%
Aeropace                          10.9%
Electronics                       13.2%
I did not have prior engineering  29.0%
experience
Other                              9.6%

(*) Note: Multiple choice. May add up to more than 100%

Note: Table made from bar graph
How Secure Do You Feel About Your Position?

Very        41.1%
Somewhat    45.1%
Marginal    10.4%
Not at all   3.4%

Note: Table made from bar graph
Has Your Company Been Affected by Layoffs?

Yes, hit hard                 26.8%
Yes, minimally                45.8%
No, but it's coming            6.8%
No, and it probably won't be  20.6%

Note: Table made from bar graph
How Do You Rate Your Last Raise?

Excellent    9.4%
Good        32.9%
Fair        35.1%
Not at all  22.6%

Note: Table made from bar graph
Do You Anticipate a Reduction in Benefits or Compensation?

Unlikely to happen  31.7%
Has been discussed  16.9%
Likely to happen    20.9%
Happen already      30.9%

Note: Table made from bar graph
Has Product Quality From Suppliers Improved, Declined or Stayed the
Same?

Improved          26.5%
Declined          12.3%
Stayed the same   42.9%
A little of each  18.8%

Note: Table made from bar graph
How Do Cost Givebacks Affect Product Quality?

In a positive way        8.2%
In a negative way       32.1%
Not at all              26.5%
Depends on the product  34.1%

Note: Table made from bar graph
How Much Is Your Company Asking for or Being Asked for Givebacks?

1 to 3 percent        39.6%
4 to 5 percent        40.1%
6 to 10 percent         15%
More than 10 Percent   3.5%

Note: Table made from bar graph
Have You Ever Been Asked To Cut Cost at the Expense of Quality?

Yes, and I did it to save the contract  16.3%
Yes and refused                         16.4%
No, but would if necessary              24.7%
No but would cease doing business       43.7%
with the company

Note: Table made from bar graph
Have Online Services Changed your Bidding Process?

Haven't Tried them  27%
Yes                  9%
No                  64%

Note: Table made from pie chart
Has Your Company Been Hurt From Online Services?

Yes  22%
No   64%

Note: Table made from pie chart
Does Your Company Purchase or Sell Through Online Auctions?

Yes, purchase  14.2%
Yes, sell       8.9%
Yes, both      17.1%
No, neither    60.9%

Note: Table made from bar graph