China's auto industry: urgently need to deepen reforms and expand opening up

The automobile industry has made considerable achievements in its reform and opening up. Currently, it has entered the stage of reform and opening up. There are still bottlenecks in the reform of large-scale state-owned auto companies and the relationship between government and enterprises, and the introduction and absorption of service trade systems and management ideas are still in the initial stage.

Reform and opening up are both an old topic and a new issue for the Chinese auto industry.

The reform and opening up of China's auto industry has already gone through more than 20 years, from "the lack of weight and lightness" to almost empty cars, to the rise of cars, both commercial vehicles and passenger cars; from the "three major three small" to the automotive industry enterprises The total number exceeds 6,000; from the introduction of technology to the introduction of capital to establish joint ventures, from open cooperation to joint venture cooperation and independent innovation in parallel. For more than 20 years, the Chinese automobile industry has assumed the status of a pillar industry of the national economy.

The auto industry's reform and opening up has indeed made considerable achievements. However, this does not mean that the auto industry does not need to continue reforms and opening up. On the contrary, the reform of large-scale state-owned auto companies still has bottlenecks such as the relationship between government and enterprises. Although the auto industry has opened up, it has introduced products. And technology, but the introduction and absorption of the service trade system and management thoughts are still in their infancy.

At present, the Chinese auto market is moving toward a stable development stage. The auto industry should take advantage of this opportunity to deepen reforms, expand openness, and increase the core competitiveness of enterprises and industries. Relevant government departments should also change the management methods, give auto companies development space and strong support, and introduce policies and regulations that are conducive to the establishment of a service trade system for the auto industry, and provide guidance for the further development of the auto industry and provide strong backing.

The results of reform and opening up can not be denied

In the major discussions on auto innovation in the automobile industry in the past year, there is a tendency to misinterpret the decision for independent innovation and negate the achievements of the auto industry's reform and opening up. This view actually does not understand the history of the Chinese auto industry. Looking back over more than 20 years of development history, we can clearly see the scale, technology, types of vehicles, prices, and the major leap forward for the national economy.

First of all, from the perspective of scale, China has introduced more than 1,000 technologies and development technologies for complete vehicles and components since the reform and opening up more than 20 years ago, and has established a relatively complete automotive industry system. The production and sales volume of automobiles has increased by more than 20 times. In 1980, the output of automobiles in China was only 222,000, of which only 5418 were cars. By 2005, the annual production and sales volume of automobiles exceeded 5.7 million, of which nearly 2.8 million were passenger cars, making it the world’s third-largest automotive consumer after the United States and Japan.

Secondly, from the perspective of the contribution of the automotive industry to the national economy, in recent years, the total output value of the Chinese auto industry has been set at more than 500 billion yuan each year, which is far ahead in the manufacturing industry. The government’s revenue from the automotive industry and the profits from state-owned assets are also measured in the hundreds of billions. In an average annual economic growth of 8%, the contribution of automobiles and related industries is as high as 1.6 percentage points. Automobiles and related industries also provide one-tenth of China’s jobs.

Again, from the perspective of the actual benefits obtained by consumers, China’s car prices were three to four times more than the international market at the beginning of reform and opening up, and the number of models was very small. At present, the prices of the Chinese car market are basically the same as those in the international market. Almost all international mainstream brands and self-owned brands are available to consumers. At present, the domestic private car ownership has exceeded 12 million vehicles.

Fourth, reform and opening up have also cultivated competitive large-scale automobile companies. These large enterprises not only played the role of pillars of the automobile industry, but also activated the regional economy. Their reform roads and experience have become a successful example of state-owned enterprise reform.

FAW, for example, is a typical example of comprehensive development. Its products have transformed from a single medium-sized truck to a medium, heavy, light, sedan, passenger, and micro-scale architecture. Enterprises have realized the transition from a factory system to a corporatized system; capital has been realized. From simple state-owned capital to a diversified structure. In particular, it is worth mentioning that FAW's reorganization of Tianjin Auto not only provided FAW with an economical Jiajiao product line, but also avoided duplicate construction, saved construction funds, and provided a model for mergers and acquisitions in the auto industry. .

The comprehensive strategic cooperation between Dongfeng Motor and Nissan is another development path for automobile central enterprises. Such an old state-owned enterprise as Dongfeng Motor Co., Ltd. has stepped out of the mountains, fully cooperated with multinational companies, and can smoothly complete the transition. It is itself a successful example of the reform of state-owned enterprises, and this cooperation has established a modern enterprise system for auto companies in terms of property rights and asset stocks. All have important implications.

Heavy truck industry leaders China Sinotruck's experience in corporate reforms, especially the separation of the main and auxiliary industries, is invaluable. Heavy-duty trucks have been implementing "downsizing" since around 2001, reforming, handing over, and depriving some of the subsidiaries associated with the main business through institutional innovation; for some "semi-social" companies, CNHTC has adopted a spin-off approach. local. The "Sinotruck reform model" has achieved a debt ratio as high as 138.49% and an annual profit and tax amount of nearly 1 billion yuan in just 5 years, which is worth learning from other state-owned enterprises.

The government has excessively interfered with the bottleneck of reform

The automotive industry has achieved some results in its reform and opening up, but this does not mean that there is no need to continue reform and opening up. Since the beginning of this year, General Secretary Hu Jintao has repeatedly stressed that we must continue to push forward the socialist modernization drive at a new historical starting point. In the final analysis, we must rely on deepening reforms and expanding openness.

At present, the reform and opening up of the automotive industry has entered a deeper stage of tackling difficulties. How to establish a modern enterprise system, how to enhance the ability of independent innovation, and how to optimize the industrial structure are all urgent problems to be solved. The deepening reform of large state-owned enterprises is the most important issue. .

With the deepening reform of large-scale state-owned enterprises, besides issues such as the reemployment of laid-off workers in state-owned enterprises and the social security system, deep-seated problems such as the relationship between government, enterprises, and government, etc., are the main factors restricting the reform of state-owned enterprises.

The root cause of the problem of government-enterprise relations is that the government often acts as the protagonist of economic activities and resource allocation, and restrains the market from playing a fundamental role in the allocation of resources. Although the intention of the government departments is good, but in fact it often causes the government to intervene in the microeconomic excess, and the result is often counterproductive.

One of the manifestations of misplaced, offside, and absent government functions is that government supervision is all-embracing, and the more tightly controlled, the more detailed. For example, the SASAC has interfered too much with the specific issues such as the size of the central SOEs and the product mix. Under the socialist market economic system, the issues such as the size of enterprises should be determined by market competition. Relevant departments do not consider market factors to issue administrative regulations, which will easily result in many companies having to “comply” with their “intentions”, and desperately do large-scale work regardless of the actual market demand. This kind of plan management tends to be very unfavorable to the long-term healthy development of the industry.

The second performance is the unreasonable evaluation mechanism for existing business managers. At present, relevant government departments implement enterprise-based managers' evaluation mechanisms based on their business performance, which can easily lead to short-term behaviors in which business leaders are only responsible for their own term of office. For example, in the issue of independent innovation, companies need a considerable amount of time and very large investment in capital and manpower. Moreover, it is not as easy to introduce and imitate as to achieve results. Government departments only assess performance leaders for business performance, and it is easy for leaders to achieve Its prescribed operating profit targets have had to reduce huge investment in independent innovation and other aspects, resulting in a slow increase in the overall innovation level of the industry.

The third performance is too many management departments, cross-functional functions, and management confusion. Recently, a certain department announced to the public the "road freight cars and car train models." Who is more authoritative in the management access department and the recommended department? Why is the list of candidates not optimised by conditions from the existing list, but must companies apply for registration on their own? Why do you recommend a large number of preferential conditions? This is only the tip of the iceberg that manages chaos.

The fourth performance is the lack of actual support from the relevant government departments for the industry. Taking self-innovation as an example, although the government departments have expressed strong support, actual help has not yet been put in place. This is one of the reasons why the auto industry’s independent innovation has been slow to advance overall.

In order to deepen reforms, the government must achieve a transition from "economic construction type" to "public service type." At the central level, it is necessary to reduce intervention in microeconomic activities, and in the local area, it is important to implement separation of government and enterprises.

At present, relevant government departments have taken this issue into consideration. According to Zhang Shulin, executive vice president of the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, the “Eleventh Five-Year Plan” is very different from the “Tenth Five-Year Plan”. It is no longer the way to manage the auto industry in a planned economy. It mainly depends on the market to allocate the production capacity. The content of independent decision-making by the government is no longer planned. This change is quite gratifying, but it should also be monitored during implementation to prevent good policies from being “out of shape” during implementation.

In addition, the relevant government departments should also reform the assessment mechanism of corporate leaders, and should not regard performance as the only assessment indicator. At the same time, they should also provide practical support for independent innovation, such as the establishment of independent development funds to support the development of common key technologies. Activities; government procurement should give priority to the use of independent brands.

Open to the outside world must learn the essence of management

The opening up of the automotive industry has been unprecedentedly challenged in the past year. In fact, technology introduction and joint venture cooperation have played an important role in the development and growth of the Chinese auto industry after the reform and opening up, especially the car industry. This is an undeniable fact. Joint venture and cooperation itself is beneficial and harmless to independent innovation. The key is not to regard introduction as the end point, not to learn to be complacent and complacent, but to learn the essence and absorb it for its own use. This is the essence of opening to the outside world.

Take management as an example, "Management Toyota" has now become the consensus of the world's manufacturing companies. Toyota is able to achieve sustained growth under the economic downturn and is expected to surpass GM as the world's largest automotive industry. TPS (Toyota’s lean production model) has played an important role in this process. Chinese auto companies have proposed studying TPS, but successful people are rare. What are the reasons?

The key is that many companies do not really understand TPS. In fact, TPS is not only a production method, but also an ideological revolution. Many companies invited Japanese experts to adjust the production line. Chinese employees only operated in accordance with the regulations, but they did not understand why they should do so. “If you know what you know, you do not know why,” simply copying the "kanban" and "an lamp" in the TPS. The method cannot achieve true lean production.

Chinese companies should learn the essence of TPS, that is to prevent all waste, quality above everything, customers above all else, but also should absorb the "autonomy", "just-in-time production", "standard work" and other specific methods. If Chinese companies can create a CPS (China's lean production model) that suits their own in the process of independent innovation like the TPS creator, Noji Ohno, it is only true knowledge.

Another example is the 4S shop, only to learn fur, did not learn the essence. Although the hardware conditions of domestic 4S stores are generally good, there is a big gap between “software” and foreign countries. Many 4S stores still stay at the stage of waiting for customers to come to the door, while the sales staff of foreign 4S stores often take the initiative to "attack."

Other service trade systems such as automotive finance, insurance, car quality and service complaints are even wider. There is a lot to learn and learn from. Automobile companies should take advantage of the opportunities for stable market development, introduce and digest service models in mature foreign markets, and relevant government departments should also issue detailed regulations for service trade as soon as possible, and study and formulate regulations such as “car three packs” that consumers are eagerly looking forward to. The healthy development of the industry laid the foundation.