Boeing admits 787 strategy flawed

[ned]

"Now that Boeing has conceded that the first flight and
first deliveries of the new 787 jetliner will be at least
six months behind schedule, company officials acknowledge
that their strategy of relying on far-flung major
subcontractors to design and produce most major components
was flawed.

Speaking at a meeting in the Seattle area last week, Mike
Bair, the Boeing vice president recently deposed as head of
the 787 program, said having prefabricated wings and
fuselage sections flown to Seattle proved impractical and
inefficient. Ideally, Bair said, Boeing might emulate
Toyota, having major subcontractors locate their facilities
close by.

"The right way to do this would be to have all those big
parts [produced] across the street so you could just roll
them in," Bair said, according to The Seattle Times. "We'll
see on the next airplane programs whether we can accomplish
something like that."

Bair went on to say Boeing was deeply disappointed in the
work of some key suppliers. "Some of these guys we won't use
again." He didn't name names.

But a few months ago media and analyst reports singled out
Dallas-based Vought Aircraft Industries as the supplier
struggling the most to meet Boeing's ambitious schedule for
787 production. Vought builds 787 components at a new plant
in Charleston, S.C., and works with Italian supplier Alenia
at an adjoining plant to integrate the companies' fuselage
sections.

A Boeing spokeswoman declined in an e-mail to elaborate on
Bair's remarks. Vought spokeswoman Lynne Warne said the
company is "working closely and diligently with Boeing to
meet their requirements.""
http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/292341.html

[[email protected]]

To clarify:

On the 777 program (which I worked on) all of the systems engineering
and integration work was done in-house. In an effort to reduce costs,
Boeing decided to try pushing more of the systems engineering down
onto the suppliers (Honeywell, Collins, Smiths, etc.).

Most of the engineers that I worked with at Boeing felt this was a
mistake, as the suppliers tend to be self-serving and don't always
have Boeing's best interest in mind. They also don't play well with
each other like they must to successfully integrate the systems, and
Boeing engineers are often needed to mediate between suppliers.

The 777 program was a very successful program that hit its targets.
The 787 program is stumbling, mostly due to systems integration
issues.

This article is basically an admission by Bair that this new strategy
isn't working out.

[z0ned0ut]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:26:29 -0800 '
wrote this on rec.travel.air:

>To clarify:
>
>On the 777 program (which I worked on) all of the systems engineering
>and integration work was done in-house. In an effort to reduce costs,
>Boeing decided to try pushing more of the systems engineering down
>onto the suppliers (Honeywell, Collins, Smiths, etc.).
>
>Most of the engineers that I worked with at Boeing felt this was a
>mistake, as the suppliers tend to be self-serving and don't always
>have Boeing's best interest in mind. They also don't play well with
>each other like they must to successfully integrate the systems, and
>Boeing engineers are often needed to mediate between suppliers.
>
>The 777 program was a very successful program that hit its targets.
>The 787 program is stumbling, mostly due to systems integration
>issues.
>
>This article is basically an admission by Bair that this new strategy
>isn't working out.

More about it here:
>http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/01/219069/boeing-considers-re-centralising-after-787-problems.html

[mrtravel]

wrote:
> To clarify:
>
> On the 777 program (which I worked on) all of the systems engineering
> and integration work was done in-house. In an effort to reduce costs,
> Boeing decided to try pushing more of the systems engineering down
> onto the suppliers (Honeywell, Collins, Smiths, etc.).
>
> Most of the engineers that I worked with at Boeing felt this was a
> mistake, as the suppliers tend to be self-serving and don't always
> have Boeing's best interest in mind.

Isn't this also true of groups inside Boeing?
Surely it doesn't just apply to the former MD employees.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Nov 5, 3:26 pm, wrote:

> Most of the engineers that I worked with at Boeing felt this was a
> mistake, as the suppliers tend to be self-serving and don't always
> have Boeing's best interest in mind. They also don't play well with
> each other like they must to successfully integrate the systems, and
> Boeing engineers are often needed to mediate between suppliers.

That may or may not be in this case but the idea of outsourcing is
that you create a relationship between the companies where their
successes are based on each other (both on equal footing). If GM had
to make all the parts for your car the company would be so large it
would have no chance to work.

-Robert

[Paul kgyy]

There's also the possibility that Boeing simply overlooked the fact
that companies always have "standard" ways of doing certain things,
and neglected to be sufficiently detailed in their specifications.

[Darkwing]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> To clarify:
>
> On the 777 program (which I worked on) all of the systems engineering
> and integration work was done in-house. In an effort to reduce costs,
> Boeing decided to try pushing more of the systems engineering down
> onto the suppliers (Honeywell, Collins, Smiths, etc.).
>
> Most of the engineers that I worked with at Boeing felt this was a
> mistake, as the suppliers tend to be self-serving and don't always
> have Boeing's best interest in mind. They also don't play well with
> each other like they must to successfully integrate the systems, and
> Boeing engineers are often needed to mediate between suppliers.
>
> The 777 program was a very successful program that hit its targets.
> The 787 program is stumbling, mostly due to systems integration
> issues.
>
> This article is basically an admission by Bair that this new strategy
> isn't working out.
>

I don't envy Boeing's business, what a nightmare that has to be.

------------------------------------
DW

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Nov 5, 3:26 pm, wrote:
>
>> Most of the engineers that I worked with at Boeing felt this was a
>> mistake, as the suppliers tend to be self-serving and don't always
>> have Boeing's best interest in mind. They also don't play well with
>> each other like they must to successfully integrate the systems, and
>> Boeing engineers are often needed to mediate between suppliers.
>
> That may or may not be in this case but the idea of outsourcing is
> that you create a relationship between the companies where their
> successes are based on each other (both on equal footing). If GM had
> to make all the parts for your car the company would be so large it
> would have no chance to work.
>
> -Robert

Let's keep one thing in mind. Much of the reason for outsourcing for Boeing
is to make foreign governments happy when it comes time to buy the plane.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 6, 10:52 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Nov 5, 3:26 pm, wrote:
>
> > Most of the engineers that I worked with at Boeing felt this was a
> > mistake, as the suppliers tend to be self-serving and don't always
> > have Boeing's best interest in mind. They also don't play well with
> > each other like they must to successfully integrate the systems, and
> > Boeing engineers are often needed to mediate between suppliers.
>
> That may or may not be in this case but the idea of outsourcing is
> that you create a relationship between the companies where their
> successes are based on each other (both on equal footing). If GM had
> to make all the parts for your car the company would be so large it
> would have no chance to work.
>
> -Robert

Robert,

This has nothing to do with outsourcing or making parts. It is about
engineering oversight of outsourced vendors, managing the
implementation of specifications, and managing the systems integration
effort.

Dean

[[email protected]]

> What concerns me most is that little old me - never been near an
> aeroplane manufacturing gig in my life - spends a couple of years
> at manglement school and *none* of this stuff at Boeing is of
> *any* surprise to me, and yet a multi-billion dollar manufacturing
> organisation that /should/ be apple to afford all of the best
> manglement types that money can buy still seems to be struggling
> with basic textbook level manufacturing management issues. It's
> bizarre... maybe the frogs are better at making aeroplanes after
> all?
>

This makes it clear why your response was so brain-dead and ill-
informed... management school, that says it all!

[[email protected]]

On Nov 6, 11:16 am, Paul kgyy > wrote:
> There's also the possibility that Boeing simply overlooked the fact
> that companies always have "standard" ways of doing certain things,
> and neglected to be sufficiently detailed in their specifications.

No, here's just one example of what happened:

On the 777, the AIMS (Airplane Information Management System)
architecture and processing requirements were defined 100% by
engineers at Boeing (many are friends of mine). Honeywell, who did
the AIMS system, knew what the total MIPS requirements were for the
total processing taskload right at the start because Boeing engineers
were able to leverage past metrics and did a good job of projecting
the requirements for the new software and put it in the system
specifications. After all, they were the ones defining what all the
software tasks were, and could see the big picture and manage it.

For the 787, Smiths was given the task of writing the specifications
for the processor and doing the design of the core processor module
for the main avionics sytem, and other vendors (Honeywell, Collins,
etc.) wrote code to do their software functions that execute on the
Smiths hardware. Boeing didn't own the requirments for this
processing taskload, and allowed Smiths to own it. Smiths way
underestimated the total software taskload (didn't play well with
others, and vice versa), and underdesigned the CPM. Now, they are
having to put in twice the number of processor modules to handle the
taskload, which is doubling the power, doubling the weight, and eating
up all the planned growth margin for the system in the intitial
delivery configuration.

Like I said before, its all about doing a good job of top-level
requirements, integration, and vendor management, and Boeing has
traditionally done a world-class job of it, but on this airplane,
management thought that they could push more of this task on the
vendors with unfortunate results. IMHO its best for the system
integrator to own the system requirements, system design, system
integration, and vendor coordination tasks. Trusting this to the
vendors who are inherently in competition with each other is not the
wisest decision to make. The vendors' strength has always been the
detailed implementation of the requirements in hardware and software.

[me[_2_]]

On Nov 6, 4:32 pm, GB > wrote:
[snip]
> What concerns me most is that little old me - never been near an
> aeroplane manufacturing gig in my life - spends a couple of years
> at manglement school and *none* of this stuff at Boeing is of
> *any* surprise to me, and yet a multi-billion dollar manufacturing
> organisation that /should/ be apple to afford all of the best
> manglement types that money can buy still seems to be struggling
> with basic textbook level manufacturing management issues. It's
> bizarre... maybe the frogs are better at making aeroplanes after
> all?

I think the point you are overlooking is that in a design
program,
where parts have to be optimized in concert, outsourcing much of it
won't result in any cost or efficiency based savings because the
amount of oversight required will absorb any potential savings.
Airplanes
require a significant amount of interactive optimization that is hard
to
achieve with multiple suppliers. You can outsource relative "stand
alone"
components with narrow performance requirements. Tires, brakes,
to some extent seating and interior components, etc. can all be
designed
relatively separately from the aircraft. However, primary structure,
interconnected hydrolic systems, electrical systems, etc are difficult
to develop as stand alone systems. Engines have always been a
tough place in the design process and most aircraft are in effect
designed
"around" the engines. The engines actually are well ahead of the
aircraft in the development cycle because they will tend to define
what
can be achieved with the rest of the aircraft. Even at that, however,
there
is very tight connections between the engine developer and the
airframer.
And in the end, virtually every major aircraft will go through an "re-
engine"
phase in its life, something which is planned for up front.

All of which is to say that the engineers know perfectly well how
to
manage an integration project on this scale, and they have the numbers
to know where savings can be made by outsourcing, and where they
might as well be kept "in house". Some times one just has to admit
that the engineers know what they are talking about, and the
management
is just blowing smoke.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 6, 7:01 pm, GB > wrote:
> wrote in news:1194387439.920316.182900@
> 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > This makes it clear why your response was so brain-dead and ill-
> > informed... management school, that says it all!
>
> Well, it's good to see that you've taken the time to deliver a
> detailed analysis of exactly which bits were "brain dead" and
> "ill informed". Thanks for that.
>
> I stand by my previous statements. You're whining because you
> don't like change and because you think the world owes you
> something.
>
> GB
> --
> .sig

I'm doing nothing of the sort, neither whining nor complaining. I
don't work for Boeing anymore, and am only offering observations on
what is going on there.

You are offering up nothing but a bunch of psychobabble pablum that
you are regurgitating from the lame management classes that you took.
The "who moved my cheese" crap is just a poor way of trying to soft
sell layoffs and job cuts rather than just being honest with people.

The problem with the latest crop of US management is that they are a
bunch of imagination deficient clones of the paradigm du jour that is
being peddled in college business schools. If you really want a
dynamic workforce, you need to learn how to truly motivate people and
stop treating them like expenses that need to be controlled, which
seems to be the current philosophy. Managers tend to be way overpaid
for what they do, while individual contributors who make things happen
are getting a smaller and smaller slice of the corporate pie.

One of the latest favorite corporate fads is to use forced ranking so
that you always have a bottom dwelling person in the rankings who will
lose their job unless they "improve", regardless of how well they
actually are doing their job. Its all relative to their peers, and
the difference can be slight (HP, GE, etc). Often it becomes
impossible for them to improve their status, so they get shoved out
the door and the corporation winds up wasting money on recruiting a
replacement, workforce training, etc. etc. This technique creates an
environment of political maneuvering, backbiting, and discourages team
efforts. I suppose they have been teaching this gem of a management
technique in school lately as well; the Jack Welch school of
management.

No, I'm just glad that I'm an engineer who actually contributes real
goods to the betterment of society, and not some parasitic management
type who thinks that they have all the answers and love to lecture on
the crap that they were spoon fed in their "management school". Lets
see you solve a multi-variable differential equation. No? Stick with
cheese then...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Nom, they didn't. Which makes you a liar.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Nov 7, 12:26 am, GB > wrote:
> wrote in news:1194410084.411339.86030
> @e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I'm doing nothing of the sort, neither whining nor complaining.
>
> OK, maybe those words mean something different where you come
> from. What do you call "whining and complaining" in your parts?
>
> > I don't work for Boeing anymore, and am only offering observations
> > on what is going on there.
>
> So, I was right on that point.
>
> > You are offering up nothing but a bunch of psychobabble pablum that
> > you are regurgitating from the lame management classes that you took.
>
> An interesting interpretation, but not an accurate one.
>
> > The "who moved my cheese" crap is just a poor way of trying to soft
> > sell layoffs and job cuts rather than just being honest with people.
>
> Ah, I see, you must be American. I shall in future, for the benefit
> of you and your ilk, raise my right hand in the air when I am being
> facetious, sarcastic, ironic or otherwise taking the ****. I hope
> that makes it easier for you.
>
> > The problem with the latest crop of US management is that they are a
> > bunch of imagination deficient clones of the paradigm du jour that is
> > being peddled in college business schools.
>
> No, that's absolutely not the case. In fact, we spend a lot of time
> in manglement school looking at the "latest crop of US management",
> observing what a bunch of useless fvcktards they are, and figuring out
> how to send our *next* batch of graduates out to clean up the messes
> the current twits have made.
>
> > If you really want a
> > dynamic workforce, you need to learn how to truly motivate people and
> > stop treating them like expenses that need to be controlled, which
> > seems to be the current philosophy.
>
> That's what was taught in manglement school twenty years ago, yes.
> Things have moved on just a little bit since then. Now we teach our
> students how to truly motivate people rather than treating them like
> expenses that need to be controlled.
>
> I find it particularly interesting that you assume that the things
> that sixty and seventy year old people with no formal business education
> are doing what we teach in manglement school now. The real problem, I
> guess, with being as uninformed as you clearly are is that you end up
> making a right goose of yourself, running about with your foot in your
> mouth all the time.
>
> > Managers tend to be way overpaid
> > for what they do, while individual contributors who make things happen
> > are getting a smaller and smaller slice of the corporate pie.
>
> I recognise that, it's bitterness. Common amongst people who can't
> cope with change.
>
> > One of the latest favorite corporate fads is to use forced ranking so
> > that you always have a bottom dwelling person in the rankings who will
> > lose their job unless they "improve", regardless of how well they
> > actually are doing their job.
>
> You know, you should take a very close look at the employment contracts
> you've signed. If you keep making statements like this, one ex employer
> or another is going to wise up to the time machine you've got in your
> basement and they're going to demand you hand it over.
>
> > Its all relative to their peers, and
> > the difference can be slight (HP, GE, etc). Often it becomes
> > impossible for them to improve their status, so they get shoved out
> > the door and the corporation winds up wasting money on recruiting a
> > replacement, workforce training, etc. etc. This technique creates an
> > environment of political maneuvering, backbiting, and discourages team
> > efforts.
>
> More uninformed bull****. Maybe this is how things really work in
> America. Maybe this is why we spend so much time using American
> businesses as examples of what not to do.
>
> > I suppose they have been teaching this gem of a management
> > technique in school lately as well; the Jack Welch school of
> > management.
>
> You ought to spend less time believing what you read in airport
> bookshops too. That's a road to nowhere if I've ever seen one.
>
> > No, I'm just glad that I'm an engineer who actually contributes real
> > goods to the betterment of society,
>
> Ahhh, an engineer with a closed mind. A card carrying member of
> the TWU too, I'll bet. That explains a lot!
>
> (I particularly like the bit where you assume that I am not an
> engineer!)
>
> > and not some parasitic management
> > type who thinks that they have all the answers and love to lecture on
> > the crap that they were spoon fed in their "management school".
>
> Actually, *this* is one of the things that we *do* teach in manglement
> school: people who can't think outside the box, people who are unable
> to consider that there might be more than one true way, people who
> are unprepared to play nice with others... those folks are a cancer and
> they must go.
>
> Maybe that's why you're not at Boeing any more? Maybe that's why you're
> still 'just' an engineer. Maybe you should have paid a little more
> attention during the four compulsory business/management units that you
> did in your engineering degree? You know there's a reason we make you
> do those classes that you perceive as "irrelevant": so you can learn
> how the other half works and work with them 'cos if you spend the rest
> of your career fighting them, it's gonna be a short career.
>
> > Lets see you solve a multi-variable differential equation. No?
>
> I particularly like the bit where you assume that I am not an engineer!
>
> > Stick with cheese then...
>
> That one really did sail *right* over your head, didn't it.
>
> One of my very best undergraduate students this semester is an engineer
> (well, he will be one soon) doing the compulsory business/management
> bits of his engineering degree. He sits up the front of my manglement
> classes and makes reasoned contributions on all sorts of "bull****"
> like personality and "irrelevant" corporate cultures and "useless"
> practices like recognising that different types of people are
> motivated in different ways and "crap" like dismantling deep corporate
> hierarchies to remove layers of management and get the people who do
> the work closer to the people who make the decisions. He's better at
> it than most of the pure business students. He'll become an excellent
> engineer, and his with ability to keep an open mind and to look at
> situations from multiple points of view and act appropriately will make
> him eminently promotable. You should keep an eye out for him, he's
> likely to end up being your boss pretty quickly.
>
> Best of luck with those multi-variable differential equations. The
> world around you has changed, but the equations are still the same
> as you rote-learned in 'college'. It's your closed mind that's holding
> you back.
>
> GB
> --
> .sig

LOL! Man, you really think you really must have a weak ego to feel
the need to post a message like that on usenet proclaiming your
superiority, to make erroneous assumptions about who you are talking
to, and to try to criticize based on zero information. You are WAY
off the mark.

The fact that you are touting "who moved my cheese" tells me you don't
really grasp what management is all about.

I have wasted enough time on you, that much is clear.

[John Ewing]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Nov 7, 12:26 am, GB > wrote:
>> wrote in news:1194410084.411339.86030
>> @e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > I'm doing nothing of the sort, neither whining nor complaining.
>>
>> OK, maybe those words mean something different where you come
>> from. What do you call "whining and complaining" in your parts?
>>
>> > I don't work for Boeing anymore, and am only offering observations
>> > on what is going on there.
>>
>> So, I was right on that point.
>>
>> > You are offering up nothing but a bunch of psychobabble pablum that
>> > you are regurgitating from the lame management classes that you took.
>>
>> An interesting interpretation, but not an accurate one.
>>
>> > The "who moved my cheese" crap is just a poor way of trying to soft
>> > sell layoffs and job cuts rather than just being honest with people.
>>
>> Ah, I see, you must be American. I shall in future, for the benefit
>> of you and your ilk, raise my right hand in the air when I am being
>> facetious, sarcastic, ironic or otherwise taking the ****. I hope
>> that makes it easier for you.
>>
>> > The problem with the latest crop of US management is that they are a
>> > bunch of imagination deficient clones of the paradigm du jour that is
>> > being peddled in college business schools.
>>
>> No, that's absolutely not the case. In fact, we spend a lot of time
>> in manglement school looking at the "latest crop of US management",
>> observing what a bunch of useless fvcktards they are, and figuring out
>> how to send our *next* batch of graduates out to clean up the messes
>> the current twits have made.
>>
>> > If you really want a
>> > dynamic workforce, you need to learn how to truly motivate people and
>> > stop treating them like expenses that need to be controlled, which
>> > seems to be the current philosophy.
>>
>> That's what was taught in manglement school twenty years ago, yes.
>> Things have moved on just a little bit since then. Now we teach our
>> students how to truly motivate people rather than treating them like
>> expenses that need to be controlled.
>>
>> I find it particularly interesting that you assume that the things
>> that sixty and seventy year old people with no formal business education
>> are doing what we teach in manglement school now. The real problem, I
>> guess, with being as uninformed as you clearly are is that you end up
>> making a right goose of yourself, running about with your foot in your
>> mouth all the time.
>>
>> > Managers tend to be way overpaid
>> > for what they do, while individual contributors who make things happen
>> > are getting a smaller and smaller slice of the corporate pie.
>>
>> I recognise that, it's bitterness. Common amongst people who can't
>> cope with change.
>>
>> > One of the latest favorite corporate fads is to use forced ranking so
>> > that you always have a bottom dwelling person in the rankings who will
>> > lose their job unless they "improve", regardless of how well they
>> > actually are doing their job.
>>
>> You know, you should take a very close look at the employment contracts
>> you've signed. If you keep making statements like this, one ex employer
>> or another is going to wise up to the time machine you've got in your
>> basement and they're going to demand you hand it over.
>>
>> > Its all relative to their peers, and
>> > the difference can be slight (HP, GE, etc). Often it becomes
>> > impossible for them to improve their status, so they get shoved out
>> > the door and the corporation winds up wasting money on recruiting a
>> > replacement, workforce training, etc. etc. This technique creates an
>> > environment of political maneuvering, backbiting, and discourages team
>> > efforts.
>>
>> More uninformed bull****. Maybe this is how things really work in
>> America. Maybe this is why we spend so much time using American
>> businesses as examples of what not to do.
>>
>> > I suppose they have been teaching this gem of a management
>> > technique in school lately as well; the Jack Welch school of
>> > management.
>>
>> You ought to spend less time believing what you read in airport
>> bookshops too. That's a road to nowhere if I've ever seen one.
>>
>> > No, I'm just glad that I'm an engineer who actually contributes real
>> > goods to the betterment of society,
>>
>> Ahhh, an engineer with a closed mind. A card carrying member of
>> the TWU too, I'll bet. That explains a lot!
>>
>> (I particularly like the bit where you assume that I am not an
>> engineer!)
>>
>> > and not some parasitic management
>> > type who thinks that they have all the answers and love to lecture on
>> > the crap that they were spoon fed in their "management school".
>>
>> Actually, *this* is one of the things that we *do* teach in manglement
>> school: people who can't think outside the box, people who are unable
>> to consider that there might be more than one true way, people who
>> are unprepared to play nice with others... those folks are a cancer and
>> they must go.
>>
>> Maybe that's why you're not at Boeing any more? Maybe that's why you're
>> still 'just' an engineer. Maybe you should have paid a little more
>> attention during the four compulsory business/management units that you
>> did in your engineering degree? You know there's a reason we make you
>> do those classes that you perceive as "irrelevant": so you can learn
>> how the other half works and work with them 'cos if you spend the rest
>> of your career fighting them, it's gonna be a short career.
>>
>> > Lets see you solve a multi-variable differential equation. No?
>>
>> I particularly like the bit where you assume that I am not an engineer!
>>
>> > Stick with cheese then...
>>
>> That one really did sail *right* over your head, didn't it.
>>
>> One of my very best undergraduate students this semester is an engineer
>> (well, he will be one soon) doing the compulsory business/management
>> bits of his engineering degree. He sits up the front of my manglement
>> classes and makes reasoned contributions on all sorts of "bull****"
>> like personality and "irrelevant" corporate cultures and "useless"
>> practices like recognising that different types of people are
>> motivated in different ways and "crap" like dismantling deep corporate
>> hierarchies to remove layers of management and get the people who do
>> the work closer to the people who make the decisions. He's better at
>> it than most of the pure business students. He'll become an excellent
>> engineer, and his with ability to keep an open mind and to look at
>> situations from multiple points of view and act appropriately will make
>> him eminently promotable. You should keep an eye out for him, he's
>> likely to end up being your boss pretty quickly.
>>
>> Best of luck with those multi-variable differential equations. The
>> world around you has changed, but the equations are still the same
>> as you rote-learned in 'college'. It's your closed mind that's holding
>> you back.
>>
>> GB
>> --
>> .sig
>
> LOL! Man, you really think you really must have a weak ego to feel
> the need to post a message like that on usenet proclaiming your
> superiority, to make erroneous assumptions about who you are talking
> to, and to try to criticize based on zero information. You are WAY
> off the mark.
>
> The fact that you are touting "who moved my cheese" tells me you don't
> really grasp what management is all about.
>
> I have wasted enough time on you, that much is clear.

Dean - sometimes you strike it lucky - occasionally GB can come up with a
sensible rebuttal.
Mate - you are incredibly unlucky. So am I! What an amazing co-incidence.

Perhaps his address as displayed at the top of this post is a hint on his
true self - kickindanuts.threefiddy.com
Now if that isn't an example of classic management theory then I am lost for
words .....

John

(Sorry - I felt an uncontrollable desire to sign off)

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Let's keep one thing in mind. Much of the reason for outsourcing for Boeing
> is to make foreign governments happy when it comes time to buy the plane.

Yup. That's the overwhelming reason. It works almost as well as a bribe, and
it's legal. Unfortunately, it produces an inferior product.

[Mxsmanic]

The reality is that top managers are born, not made, and they are in limited
supply. No management school can change that. They're are many heavily
educated but talent-free managers in the business world, and that's the real
problem.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Let's keep one thing in mind. Much of the reason for outsourcing for
>> Boeing is to make foreign governments happy when it comes time to
>> buy the plane.
>
> Yup. That's the overwhelming reason. It works almost as well as a
> bribe, and it's legal. Unfortunately, it produces an inferior
> product.

No that is just a nation taking care of their own. They know as well as
Boeing and anyone else that earns any of this stuff known as money, that you
have to sell an item in order to make any money.

[John Ewing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> The reality is that top managers are born, not made, and they are in
> limited
> supply. No management school can change that. They're are many heavily
> educated but talent-free managers in the business world, and that's the
> real
> problem.

I agree but would take a slightly less absolute view on "the born, not
made".

Certainly some people simply because of certain personality traits will
naturally evolve into excellent managers, even with little formal education
and zero management training - the "born" category.

As you state: some people, despite extensive education and training, will
never make the grade. It is not that they're a failure in life; they just
need to be employed in a job where management skills are not a
pre-requisite.

Most people lie in between these extremes and have potential for
improvement. A few will undoubtedly become top managers.

John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Let's keep one thing in mind. Much of the reason for outsourcing for
>> Boeing is to make foreign governments happy when it comes time to buy
>> the plane.
>
> Yup. That's the overwhelming reason. It works almost as well as a
> bribe, and it's legal. Unfortunately, it produces an inferior
> product.
>




You are an idiot.


You have no idea of whnce you speak.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Ewing wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The reality is that top managers are born, not made, and they are in
>> limited
>> supply. No management school can change that. They're are many
>> heavily educated but talent-free managers in the business world, and
>> that's the real
>> problem.
>
> I agree but would take a slightly less absolute view on "the born, not
> made".
>
> Certainly some people simply because of certain personality traits
> will naturally evolve into excellent managers, even with little
> formal education and zero management training - the "born" category.
>
> As you state: some people, despite extensive education and training,
> will never make the grade. It is not that they're a failure in life;
> they just need to be employed in a job where management skills are
> not a pre-requisite.
>
> Most people lie in between these extremes and have potential for
> improvement. A few will undoubtedly become top managers.
>
> John

Excuse me for butting in but John, do you realize that you are discussing
management theory with a guy that can't hold a job?

[John Ewing]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> John Ewing wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The reality is that top managers are born, not made, and they are in
>>> limited
>>> supply. No management school can change that. They're are many
>>> heavily educated but talent-free managers in the business world, and
>>> that's the real
>>> problem.
>>
>> I agree but would take a slightly less absolute view on "the born, not
>> made".
>>
>> Certainly some people simply because of certain personality traits
>> will naturally evolve into excellent managers, even with little
>> formal education and zero management training - the "born" category.
>>
>> As you state: some people, despite extensive education and training,
>> will never make the grade. It is not that they're a failure in life;
>> they just need to be employed in a job where management skills are
>> not a pre-requisite.
>>
>> Most people lie in between these extremes and have potential for
>> improvement. A few will undoubtedly become top managers.
>>
>> John
>
> Excuse me for butting in but John, do you realize that you are discussing
> management theory with a guy that can't hold a job?

I have absolutely no problem with that, and if I did, then I'm the one with
the problem!
Refer to your Management Theory notes - the chapter is headed:
Discrimination

John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> The reality is that top managers are born, not made, and they are in
> limited supply.


What, finding it difficult to find good manegerial staff for your booming
business? Those 3X5 cards you leave in the Supermarche bringing in so much
you feel you need some staff?


Bertie

[JohnT[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> The reality is that top managers are born, not made, and they are in
> limited
> supply. No management school can change that. They're are many heavily
> educated but talent-free managers in the business world, and that's the
> real
> problem.


And the above is the considered view of a talented Captain of Industry?
--

JohnT

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Excuse me for butting in but John, do you realize that you are discussing
> management theory with a guy that can't hold a job?

Do you realize how your post looks next to his?

[Mxsmanic]

JohnT writes:

> And the above is the considered view of a talented Captain of Industry?

It depends on which captain you ask, but many of them express similar
viewpoints. Which one did you have in mind?

[JohnT[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> JohnT writes:
>
>> And the above is the considered view of a talented Captain of Industry?
>
> It depends on which captain you ask, but many of them express similar
> viewpoints. Which one did you have in mind?


I forgot that you don't know the meaning of the word "irony"
--

JohnT

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> JohnT writes:
>
>> And the above is the considered view of a talented Captain of Industry?
>
> It depends on which captain you ask, but many of them express similar
> viewpoints. Which one did you have in mind?
>



Wow, out on a limb with this one fjukkwit.



Why you don't have your own column in USA today is beyond me.


Bertie

[Big John]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:13:21 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Let's keep one thing in mind. Much of the reason for outsourcing for Boeing
>> is to make foreign governments happy when it comes time to buy the plane.
>
>Yup. That's the overwhelming reason. It works almost as well as a bribe, and
>it's legal. Unfortunately, it produces an inferior product.


Why?

Big John

[Mxsmanic]

Big John writes:

> Why?

Because the places where things are made are being chosen to please potential
customers rather than as a function of technical competence and excellence.
You end up with substandard components from some Third-World dump in exchange
for a few extra contracts. You sell more planes, but they are less safe.

[Tina]

Have you any evidence to support the contention Boeng has compromised
safety by outsourcing?

On Nov 9, 6:47 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Big John writes:
> > Why?
>
> Because the places where things are made are being chosen to please potential
> customers rather than as a function of technical competence and excellence.
> You end up with substandard components from some Third-World dump in exchange
> for a few extra contracts. You sell more planes, but they are less safe.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Big John writes:
>
>> Why?
>
> Because the places where things are made are being chosen to please
> potential customers rather than as a function of technical competence
> and excellence. You end up with substandard components from some
> Third-World dump in exchange for a few extra contracts. You sell more
> planes, but they are less safe.
>

Wrong again, fjukktard


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> Have you any evidence to support the contention Boeng has compromised
> safety by outsourcing?

No, but given the extremely poor record of outsourcing for political ends, I
fear the evidence may not be long in coming.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> Have you any evidence to support the contention Boeng has compromised
>> safety by outsourcing?
>
> No, but given the extremely poor record of outsourcing for political
> ends, I fear the evidence may not be long in coming.
>

Comparing manufactue of rubber ducks to aircraft parts?

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[Tina]

So once again you make statements with no factual support. I wonder,
do you on purpose do that? It seems unlikely your error or mistatement
rate is so high rate is as high as it is by chance.

On Nov 9, 10:58 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:
> > Have you any evidence to support the contention Boeng has compromised
> > safety by outsourcing?
>
> No, but given the extremely poor record of outsourcing for political ends, I
> fear the evidence may not be long in coming.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 7, 8:05 am, wrote:
> On Nov 7, 12:26 am, GB > wrote:
>
>
>
> > wrote in news:1194410084.411339.86030
> > @e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > I'm doing nothing of the sort, neither whining nor complaining.
>
> > OK, maybe those words mean something different where you come
> > from. What do you call "whining and complaining" in your parts?
>
> > > I don't work for Boeing anymore, and am only offering observations
> > > on what is going on there.
>
> > So, I was right on that point.
>
> > > You are offering up nothing but a bunch of psychobabble pablum that
> > > you are regurgitating from the lame management classes that you took.
>
> > An interesting interpretation, but not an accurate one.
>
> > > The "who moved my cheese" crap is just a poor way of trying to soft
> > > sell layoffs and job cuts rather than just being honest with people.
>
> > Ah, I see, you must be American. I shall in future, for the benefit
> > of you and your ilk, raise my right hand in the air when I am being
> > facetious, sarcastic, ironic or otherwise taking the ****. I hope
> > that makes it easier for you.
>
> > > The problem with the latest crop of US management is that they are a
> > > bunch of imagination deficient clones of the paradigm du jour that is
> > > being peddled in college business schools.
>
> > No, that's absolutely not the case. In fact, we spend a lot of time
> > in manglement school looking at the "latest crop of US management",
> > observing what a bunch of useless fvcktards they are, and figuring out
> > how to send our *next* batch of graduates out to clean up the messes
> > the current twits have made.
>
> > > If you really want a
> > > dynamic workforce, you need to learn how to truly motivate people and
> > > stop treating them like expenses that need to be controlled, which
> > > seems to be the current philosophy.
>
> > That's what was taught in manglement school twenty years ago, yes.
> > Things have moved on just a little bit since then. Now we teach our
> > students how to truly motivate people rather than treating them like
> > expenses that need to be controlled.
>
> > I find it particularly interesting that you assume that the things
> > that sixty and seventy year old people with no formal business education
> > are doing what we teach in manglement school now. The real problem, I
> > guess, with being as uninformed as you clearly are is that you end up
> > making a right goose of yourself, running about with your foot in your
> > mouth all the time.
>
> > > Managers tend to be way overpaid
> > > for what they do, while individual contributors who make things happen
> > > are getting a smaller and smaller slice of the corporate pie.
>
> > I recognise that, it's bitterness. Common amongst people who can't
> > cope with change.
>
> > > One of the latest favorite corporate fads is to use forced ranking so
> > > that you always have a bottom dwelling person in the rankings who will
> > > lose their job unless they "improve", regardless of how well they
> > > actually are doing their job.
>
> > You know, you should take a very close look at the employment contracts
> > you've signed. If you keep making statements like this, one ex employer
> > or another is going to wise up to the time machine you've got in your
> > basement and they're going to demand you hand it over.
>
> > > Its all relative to their peers, and
> > > the difference can be slight (HP, GE, etc). Often it becomes
> > > impossible for them to improve their status, so they get shoved out
> > > the door and the corporation winds up wasting money on recruiting a
> > > replacement, workforce training, etc. etc. This technique creates an
> > > environment of political maneuvering, backbiting, and discourages team
> > > efforts.
>
> > More uninformed bull****. Maybe this is how things really work in
> > America. Maybe this is why we spend so much time using American
> > businesses as examples of what not to do.
>
> > > I suppose they have been teaching this gem of a management
> > > technique in school lately as well; the Jack Welch school of
> > > management.
>
> > You ought to spend less time believing what you read in airport
> > bookshops too. That's a road to nowhere if I've ever seen one.
>
> > > No, I'm just glad that I'm an engineer who actually contributes real
> > > goods to the betterment of society,
>
> > Ahhh, an engineer with a closed mind. A card carrying member of
> > the TWU too, I'll bet. That explains a lot!
>
> > (I particularly like the bit where you assume that I am not an
> > engineer!)
>
> > > and not some parasitic management
> > > type who thinks that they have all the answers and love to lecture on
> > > the crap that they were spoon fed in their "management school".
>
> > Actually, *this* is one of the things that we *do* teach in manglement
> > school: people who can't think outside the box, people who are unable
> > to consider that there might be more than one true way, people who
> > are unprepared to play nice with others... those folks are a cancer and
> > they must go.
>
> > Maybe that's why you're not at Boeing any more? Maybe that's why you're
> > still 'just' an engineer. Maybe you should have paid a little more
> > attention during the four compulsory business/management units that you
> > did in your engineering degree? You know there's a reason we make you
> > do those classes that you perceive as "irrelevant": so you can learn
> > how the other half works and work with them 'cos if you spend the rest
> > of your career fighting them, it's gonna be a short career.
>
> > > Lets see you solve a multi-variable differential equation. No?
>
> > I particularly like the bit where you assume that I am not an engineer!
>
> > > Stick with cheese then...
>
> > That one really did sail *right* over your head, didn't it.
>
> > One of my very best undergraduate students this semester is an engineer
> > (well, he will be one soon) doing the compulsory business/management
> > bits of his engineering degree. He sits up the front of my manglement
> > classes and makes reasoned contributions on all sorts of "bull****"
> > like personality and "irrelevant" corporate cultures and "useless"
> > practices like recognising that different types of people are
> > motivated in different ways and "crap" like dismantling deep corporate
> > hierarchies to remove layers of management and get the people who do
> > the work closer to the people who make the decisions. He's better at
> > it than most of the pure business students. He'll become an excellent
> > engineer, and his with ability to keep an open mind and to look at
> > situations from multiple points of view and act appropriately will make
> > him eminently promotable. You should keep an eye out for him, he's
> > likely to end up being your boss pretty quickly.
>
> > Best of luck with those multi-variable differential equations. The
> > world around you has changed, but the equations are still the same
> > as you rote-learned in 'college'. It's your closed mind that's holding
> > you back.
>
> > GB
> > --
> > .sig
>
> LOL! Man, you really think you really must have a weak ego to feel
> the need to post a message like that on usenet proclaiming your
> superiority, to make erroneous assumptions about who you are talking
> to, and to try to criticize based on zero information. You are WAY
> off the mark.
>
> The fact that you are touting "who moved my cheese" tells me you don't
> really grasp what management is all about.
>
> I have wasted enough time on you, that much is clear.

All anyone needs to know about the lame, patronizing book called "Who
Moved My Cheese":
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/06/21/DD171846.DTL

[Kwyjibo]

"GB" > wrote in message
...
> wrote in news:1194447919.609818.169120
> @z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>> LOL! Man, you really think you really must have a weak ego to feel
>> the need to post a message like that on usenet proclaiming your
>> superiority, to make erroneous assumptions about who you are talking
>> to, and to try to criticize based on zero information. You are WAY
>> off the mark.
>
> LOL! Man, you really think you really must have a weak ego to feel
> the need to post a message like that on usenet proclaiming your
> superiority, to make erroneous assumptions about who you are talking
> to, and to try to criticize based on zero information. You are WAY
> off the mark.

LOL! Man - no matter what you two clowns think, I have a ****ing awesome ego
and I can categorically state that I am far superior in every way
imaginable. I am so ****ing good that I *can* criticise based on no
information, and always end up being correct in my criticism.
Both of you a WAY off the mark.

And one other thing - *I* moved the ****ing cheese. Get over it.
:-)

--
Kwyj.

[[email protected]]

On 8 Nov, 21:12, "John Ewing" <none@needed> wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > The reality is that top managers are born, not made, and they are in
> > limited
> > supply. No management school can change that. They're are many heavily
> > educated but talent-free managers in the business world, and that's the
> > real
> > problem.
>
> I agree but would take a slightly less absolute view on "the born, not
> made".
>
> Certainly some people simply because of certain personality traits will
> naturally evolve into excellent managers, even with little formal education
> and zero management training - the "born" category.

There are no traits that separate out 'leaders' from the rest. Of
course those in high up positions and some recruitment people like to
think there are in order that they can select who they like best
(usually some who happens to be just like them..!)

It is mostly luck and who gets the breaks right place and time.
There's a large pool of unexceptional mediocrity to draw from. And
the higher upt you go, the more you end up like a symbolic figure-
head: mostly all you have to do is not say the wrong thing. Yet
people like George Bush somehow slip through the net..




> John

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> On 8 Nov, 21:12, "John Ewing" <none@needed> wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> The reality is that top managers are born, not made, and they are in
>>> limited
>>> supply. No management school can change that. They're are many heavily
>>> educated but talent-free managers in the business world, and that's the
>>> real
>>> problem.
>> I agree but would take a slightly less absolute view on "the born, not
>> made".
>>
>> Certainly some people simply because of certain personality traits will
>> naturally evolve into excellent managers, even with little formal education
>> and zero management training - the "born" category.
>
> There are no traits that separate out 'leaders' from the rest. Of
> course those in high up positions and some recruitment people like to
> think there are in order that they can select who they like best
> (usually some who happens to be just like them..!)

I disagree. People are born with some very distinct personality traits
that are apparent very early. Some traits are more appropriate for
leaders than are others. I believe that some are more suited to
leadership roles due to inherent personality characteristics, but I also
believe that much can be learned over time.

Matt

[Tina]

You have got to be joking. Why is one trait, like leadership, so
universal and dependent only on chance and environment?. Why not make
the same claim for intellegence, or eye color?

We talked somewhere in this group about awarding an "MX" trophy for
some comments, and I nominate you for the first such award.





On Nov 11, 5:43 am, wrote:
> On 8 Nov, 21:12, "John Ewing" <none@needed> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > The reality is that top managers are born, not made, and they are in
> > > limited
> > > supply. No management school can change that. They're are many heavily
> > > educated but talent-free managers in the business world, and that's the
> > > real
> > > problem.
>
> > I agree but would take a slightly less absolute view on "the born, not
> > made".
>
> > Certainly some people simply because of certain personality traits will
> > naturally evolve into excellent managers, even with little formal education
> > and zero management training - the "born" category.
>
> There are no traits that separate out 'leaders' from the rest. Of
> course those in high up positions and some recruitment people like to
> think there are in order that they can select who they like best
> (usually some who happens to be just like them..!)
>
> It is mostly luck and who gets the breaks right place and time.
> There's a large pool of unexceptional mediocrity to draw from. And
> the higher upt you go, the more you end up like a symbolic figure-
> head: mostly all you have to do is not say the wrong thing. Yet
> people like George Bush somehow slip through the net..
>
>
>
> > John- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Kwyjibo]

"Tina" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> You have got to be joking. Why is one trait, like leadership, so
> universal and dependent only on chance and environment?. Why not make
> the same claim for intellegence, or eye color?
>
> We talked somewhere in this group about awarding an "MX" trophy for
> some comments, and I nominate you for the first such award.
>

You talked in "this group"??
Considering you have posted your message to three separate groups, perhaps
you should get the second "MX" trophy, whatever the **** that is........

--
Kwyj.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in
oups.com:

> You have got to be joking. Why is one trait, like leadership, so
> universal and dependent only on chance and environment?. Why not make
> the same claim for intellegence, or eye color?
>
> We talked somewhere in this group about awarding an "MX" trophy for
> some comments, and I nominate you for the first such award.
>


My k00k! With an award named for him!


I'm so proud!

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On 11 Nov, 15:02, Tina > wrote:
> You have got to be joking. Why is one trait, like leadership, so
> universal and dependent only on chance and environment?. Why not make
> the same claim for intellegence, or eye color?

Leadership is not a 'trait'. 'Leadership traits' are more likely a
mechanism for protecting elites; no-one has identified a separate set
of traits that the most brilliant leaders have that others don't.
There was once a study in which industry leaders were asked to
identify what was required for their job, another set of leaders were
asked what they required from their secrataries... the list of
'traits' was very similar..!

Even the most unlikely looking people can rise to the challenge of
leading given the right circumstances.

[Tina]

There is no doubt an environmental factor in growing leaders, but --
make that BUT -- there has to be a native ability as well. Former US
President Clinton is an example of ability overwhelming environment.

The claim these sorts of traits are largely determined by chance and
circumstantice is being increasingly refuted in the professional
literature, and in fact that information is a source of increasing
ethical concern about genetic profiling.

This is very politically incorrect, but consider this: if plants can
be bred for particular traits, and they are, and chickens can be
selectively bred for better egg laying potential (and they are), don't
you think people who are intellegent might choose to marry other such
people, and their children might be above average? (Regression
analysis was, I think, invented, to examine the fact that tall
parents tended to have taller children but their children's length
actually 'regressed' toward average values.) The offspring of these
parents start with a likely superior gene set, then have envionmental
advantages as well. So, if in the US you choose to look at people in
significant leadership roles in nearly any field, you'll likely found
their parents were atypical acheivers as well. You might find the same
thing in the UK but I have not examined those data.

actually first and cow
wrote:
> On 11 Nov, 15:02, Tina > wrote:
>
> > You have got to be joking. Why is one trait, like leadership, so
> > universal and dependent only on chance and environment?. Why not make
> > the same claim for intellegence, or eye color?
>
> Leadership is not a 'trait'. 'Leadership traits' are more likely a
> mechanism for protecting elites; no-one has identified a separate set
> of traits that the most brilliant leaders have that others don't.
> There was once a study in which industry leaders were asked to
> identify what was required for their job, another set of leaders were
> asked what they required from their secrataries... the list of
> 'traits' was very similar..!
>
> Even the most unlikely looking people can rise to the challenge of
> leading given the right circumstances.

[Yes - I have a name]

"Tina" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> We talked somewhere in this group about awarding an "MX" trophy for
> some comments, and I nominate you for the first such award.

I think you just awarded an MX trophy to MX.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Yes - I have a name" > wrote in news:o01_i.4177
$cD.1235@trndny08:

> "Tina" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>> We talked somewhere in this group about awarding an "MX" trophy for
>> some comments, and I nominate you for the first such award.
>
> I think you just awarded an MX trophy to MX.
>
>
>

He's worked hard, he deserves it.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On 12 Nov, 16:43, Tina > wrote:
> There is no doubt an environmental factor in growing leaders, but --
> make that BUT -- there has to be a native ability as well. Former US
> President Clinton is an example of ability overwhelming environment.
>
> The claim these sorts of traits are largely determined by chance and
> circumstantice is being increasingly refuted in the professional
> literature, and in fact that information is a source of increasing
> ethical concern about genetic profiling.

But these personality traits do not exist, or are not specific to
'leaders'.

[Mxsmanic]

Frank F. Matthews writes:

> The problem with your comparisons is the generation length. Genetic
> selection takes a lot of generations.

When it is random, but not when it is directed.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Frank F. Matthews writes:
>
>> The problem with your comparisons is the generation length. Genetic
>> selection takes a lot of generations.
>
> When it is random, but not when it is directed.
>

Bwawhawhahwahwhahwhahwhahwhahwh!

Let's see, that either means you want to breed people according to a
program, or you believe in intelligent design.

Either way, you;re an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Frank F. Matthews" > wrote in news:473bb78f$0
:

>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Frank F. Matthews writes:
>
>>>The problem with your comparisons is the generation length. Genetic
>>>selection takes a lot of generations.
>
>> When it is random, but not when it is directed.
>
> Nonsense. The number of generation for either would be the similar in
> the different species. Now it might take a smaller proportion of
> generations to implement a given change if it is directed and the agents
> are effective but long generations will kill you in either case.
>
>


Him and his luser buddies...


http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/bedroom-747/man-builds-30000-jumbo-jet-
simulator-in-his-bedroom-312735.php


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Frank F. Matthews writes:

> Nonsense. The number of generation for either would be the similar in
> the different species.

Tell that to professional animal breeders.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Frank F. Matthews writes:
>
>> Nonsense. The number of generation for either would be the similar in
>> the different species.
>
> Tell that to professional animal breeders.


I'm sure you would, anyway.



Bertie