Alex Rodriguez
I think that his point is somewhat valid. Yes, there's gains to be had from tearing down compebreastors' vehicles and finding out what makes them tick... you might see a neat idea that could save some $$ on a subbuttembly or something.
What I think he was trying to imply, however, that this was taken to a bit of an extreme - that is, that GM finds itself in the position of playing "catch-up" to its compebreastors and may even think that if they can figure out how to build cars "as good as" their compebreastors suddenly everything will be OK. (e.g. Saturn. It's just as good as a Toyota! Honest! Really!) GM ironically enough finds itself in the same position that the Japanese were in in the 70s... and as the Japanese learned, simply trying to copy American designs or be "just as good as" American cars didn't get them to the top, but figuring out what people wanted (reasonably priced, reliable cars with a minimum of BS) and making a *superior* product (I don't particularly like Japanese cars, but even I have to admit that for sheer drive-and-forget reliability they have it all over 80+ percent of American cars currently made) eventually did.
nate
