[phkahler]

My understanding of GM is that they outsource almost everything. Last time I hired an embedded software engineer from them, the guy felt he was in a very tiny niche within the company and it was a fluke his group still existed to write code.

Infotainment systems may be different, but suppliers were doing most of the code several years back (I hired one of those guys too). With the desire to bring SaaS to automotive I would expect GM to bring some software development in-house, but they are a management-heavy company.

[hospitalJail]

>Last time I hired an embedded software engineer from them, the guy felt he was in a very tiny niche within the company and it was a fluke his group still existed to write code.

I've worked there. There are two types of people: "Lifers" which are the people you described. They are content with doing their pieces and never taking a step outside the cog they are part of. This is most of the people there.

Then there are temporary workers. Contract or Independent minded, these are the people who have no trouble calling out the problem and working on it, even if its outside the job scope. They didn't learn this at GM, they learned this somewhere else. They are temporary because they see that GM is a zombie company. There are too many useless cogs that you described. There are likely more people tracking the completion of work, than those doing work. These people are looking at their resume and how they can grow their skills to leave and make more money.

I feel like finding good workers at large companies are like playing the lottery.

[phkahler]

>> There are likely more people tracking the completion of work, than those doing work.

I completely agree. I interviewed there and above a certain level all they really want is the ability to bargain with others for resources if you or your own people can't get something done or done on time. It's not a bad thing, it's just the entire focus at that level, which leads to more chiefs than indians.

I think it stems from interdependence of components and the huge supply chain. You can't miss or it impacts the model year changeover. IMHO they need to work on that so they can have more incremental change if needed.

[bit_bear]

“My understanding of GM is that they outsource almost everything”

I think that was an attitude from like 10 years ago. When i worked there they had all their web & mobile apps in-house. They even stood up their own hosted PCF network into the more recently partnered with Azure.

[ChuckNorris89]

>My understanding of GM is that they outsource almost everything.

Every single automaker outsources nearly everything under the bodywork related to engineering and development to their suppliers. VW, Renault, BMW, Mercedes, etc. all of them do it.

[usrusr]

True, but outsourcing hardware components and outsourcing software aren't the same. Even when the hardware is actually very software-heavy, and designed to super specific requirements from the buyer, in the eyes of the supplier it's still a product. But outsourced software invariably becomes a project, with all the incentive misalignment that's implied by the term "billable hours". Even when that's technically not how the contract is set up.

[mbesto]

Correct - infotainment on manufacturers like GM are more than likely completely outsourced to a company like Aptiv: https://www.aptiv.com/en/insights/in-cabin-user-experience