Is this a good move?
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas...+temp_top+story

Would have made more sense about 4 years ago!

A fact known then too.

*sigh* To work with such bright engineers and techs...but to have such management.


B~

There are some very bright engineers and techs at Boeing but certainly not all. If you feel so strongly about poor management, why keep working for someone you despise?

If the bean counters would just stick to paying bills the world would be better off.
I myself have worked with brilliant people only to see great efforts flutshed down the toilet by inept managment

John C. Dvorak noted that 2009 is the 30th Anniversary of the computer spreadsheet program (VisiCalc) and that such programs have done more to ruin modern business then anything else because now everything is ruled by accountants running endless "what if?" scenarios that no CEO would dare contradict lest they be sued by the shareholders running their own "what if?" scenarios on their own computer spreadsheet programs.

Why should one despise a management that one finds ineffective?

I don't feel that I should agree or believe in the infallibility of those who might possess authority at Boeing. In fact, if I simply agree with everything that comes down the pike from Mahogany Row I don't think I'd be doing my job.

I am an employee, not a servant.

B~

"Is it a good move ?" asks Aurora.

Probably not, in my estimation. There are two primary issues here that should be obvious :

1. This move would increase Boeing's development and production costs proportionately.
2. You normally use outsourcing for two reasons - lack of specific technical expertise, or lower cost production. Or both.

To my mind, the answer is not to 'take the ball and go home'. Better to iron out the internal management issues within Boeing .. and overhaul the outsourcing exercise so that it becomes the 'superior' solution originally envisaged, when it was selected.

Upset outsourcing partners is never a good idea. It can end up in court ~ and often involves costly settlement penalties.

Should I add that the distraction of additional, unplanned in-house production of work that was planned outside .. only adds more potential 'risk' to the production schedule and planned delivery dates ?

Advantages ? Possibly 'cheaper' unit production (due to the lower value of the dollar) .. but is this offset by program savings ? They'd need to be considerable. And then there's the theoretical advantage of having 'control' of errant parts. But will that ever materialise ?

To be fair, the article cites verbs like "rethinking" and "are suggesting", so in the words of my favorite French airplane company, "nothing has been decided yet".

Frankly, I would expect the next aircraft program to be 80/20 in house, with 20% outsourced. This is in keeping with the overall theme of the administration of the Chosen One, where jobs will be "job one" and "in-sourcing" and 'job creation" will be the new mantras and protectionism the result. Good or bad, I can't say. I firmly believe that the out sourcing thing has been taken to extremes. Boeing's lean manufacturing model for the 788 could still work; but they've squandered enormous reserves of good will and credibility.

Kim is right on the necessity to avoid upset partners. Frankly, they own you--especially if you have outsourced to the point where Boeing has on this program.

This could be an opportunity though to start moving operations out of the "strike zone" that Washington state has become.

A380/747 discussion moved to new thread here.

To update this 787 thread, Business Week's article is not new.

During the third program delay in April 2008, Shanahan/Carson alluded back then that the 787-9 work would be brought in-house. As said, this article by BW is neither new nor offers anything not known previously (as far as I can see anyway....).