I worked for a Machine Manufacturer and we built at least 1k machines a year and most of those were custom built. So not every thing works as designed. Ever see the flow chart that starts 1 as what sales sold 2 what engineering designed 3 what buyer planners bought 4 what the shop built and 5 what was delivered to the customer. I can't see your place being competitive and not engineering depts seeing what they worked on. YMMV[/QUOTE
I've seen those charts. They're funny. But really they are more good for a laugh than they are connected to how big manufacturing works.
The difference might be a matter of scale. You say you built 1000 units a year and most were custom built. That's not really large scale mass production, and BTW, I actually prefer smaller production and favor things built the way you describe.
The difference is on products I designed they might build several hundred thousand units a year and because they are safety-rated by agencies like UL, then none of them were ever custom designed...they aren't allowed to be. (the customer can pick from a list of options to fit his needs, but that's it.).
The company I worked for was about a $50B dollar company. Kubota is listed at $100B.
When such big companies manufacture something is always surprising how little of the retail price of the product is reflected in the direct cost making it. FWIW, the number is always less than 25%, and often less than 10%.
Small variations in that percentage are really what controls whether a company is competitive or not. The product is simply expected to work as described.....and of course it more or less does. That doesn't mean it couldn't be greatly improved by customer input, but there isn't any route for that to happen. That's my point. And if it did happen it would have to also be profitable....any design changes would have to fit in without impacting that 10% cost-to-manufacture target.
rScotty