Boeing admits 787 strategy flawed

"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

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.

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 he
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-problems.html

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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!