3 ms·

An engineering background is the bare-minimum requirement, not all engineers are equal capable (or capable at all).

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
chrisseaton 7y ago
> An engineering background is the bare-minimum requirement But why? Is their problem an engineering one? Or a culture, leadership and values ones? Everyone's saying that they put profit before safety. That's a financial decision that they need to address not an engineering one!
- linuxftw 7y ago
  You have to be an engineer to understand safety. We're talking about world-leading aerospace engineering, not producing some SaaS product. You need someone that understand the technology involved better than anyone else in the industry.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > You have to be an engineer to understand safety. You're just restating the same thing without any actual arguments. Why do you need to be an engineer to understand safety? I don't know what magic training or experience do you think engineers get that nobody else does? And as I've already said, it looks to me that Boeing's chronic problems are leadership not technical. Get a leader in.
    - linuxftw 7y ago
      You have to be an engineer to understand safety. It should be abundantly clear what is meant by this. They're building aircraft. What do accountants know about building aircraft? Nothing, nothing at all. How can the buck stop with them? It can't. It has to stop somewhere lower, with an engineer, that understands safety. Unfortunately, a non-engineer won't know if their engineer underlings are A) Qualified or B) Competent.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        You don’t need to be able to do your subordinates’ jobs in order to be able to lead or manage them or to take responsibility. In a big company like Boeing you can’t possibly know the job of all your subordinates so your elitism is never going to work. How do you think for example the President of the United States effectively line manages people as diverse as defence and national parks without simultaneously being a soldier and a geographer? How do you think he judges qualification and competence of these people in globally significant safety jobs and how does he manage the buck stopping with him?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

> An engineering background is the bare-minimum requirement But why? Is their problem an engineering one? Or a culture, leadership and values ones? Everyone's saying that they put profit before safety. That's a financial decision that they need to address not an engineering one!

linuxftw 7y ago
You have to be an engineer to understand safety. We're talking about world-leading aerospace engineering, not producing some SaaS product. You need someone that understand the technology involved better than anyone else in the industry.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > You have to be an engineer to understand safety. You're just restating the same thing without any actual arguments. Why do you need to be an engineer to understand safety? I don't know what magic training or experience do you think engineers get that nobody else does? And as I've already said, it looks to me that Boeing's chronic problems are leadership not technical. Get a leader in.
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    You have to be an engineer to understand safety. It should be abundantly clear what is meant by this. They're building aircraft. What do accountants know about building aircraft? Nothing, nothing at all. How can the buck stop with them? It can't. It has to stop somewhere lower, with an engineer, that understands safety. Unfortunately, a non-engineer won't know if their engineer underlings are A) Qualified or B) Competent.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      You don’t need to be able to do your subordinates’ jobs in order to be able to lead or manage them or to take responsibility. In a big company like Boeing you can’t possibly know the job of all your subordinates so your elitism is never going to work. How do you think for example the President of the United States effectively line manages people as diverse as defence and national parks without simultaneously being a soldier and a geographer? How do you think he judges qualification and competence of these people in globally significant safety jobs and how does he manage the buck stopping with him?