3 ms·

>That's the point where you loose your in-house grip on things, and run into trouble if your contractors are not up to it. What definitive conclusion are we su

by jasode 5y ago

>That's the point where you loose your in-house grip on things, and run into trouble if your contractors are not up to it. What definitive conclusion are we supposed to get from that Bloomberg article you cited? That cheap outsourced $9/hr programmers from India caused the MCAS flaws which led to plane crashes? Therefore, if Boeing had used in-house American programmers, it wouldn't have been a problem? But if the specifications for the software were designed by Boeing management, it wouldn't have mattered where the programmers were located that actually coded it. From the investigative reports I read, it wasn't the programmers that decided 1 Angle-of-Attack sensor instead of checking 2 redundant ones -- it was the aerospace engineers and managers above the programmers. The Bloomberg article uses a narrative technique to bias the reader a certain way (reader nods in agreement "outsourcing caused the problem") -- rather than present unbiased Root Cause Analysis. As counterpoint, Tesla has programmers inhouse in California to code the self-driving software and yet it had serious flaws which contributed to fatalities. So is the correct conclusion to say that inhouse programming is "bad"? Of course not. Your cite of that type of Bloomberg article gives me an idea of what you found compelling about this thread's blog post. In my case, I was more focused on the "more outsourcing means less innovation" aspect which wasn't convincing.

ssivark 5y ago
In the Boeing case, outsourcing is likely a problem not because of the geographical location of the engineers/developers, but the cost-centric mindset that drives such decisions with utter disregard for technology and technical expertise. Lots of people know the story about killing the golden goose, but few understand the metaphor for the range of actions that actually correspond to slowly strangling the goose, instead of nurturing it.
jiofih 5y ago
The fact that the specification was wrong might actually be a pretty good counter argument to your position that outsourcing doesn’t matter. Do you think the same kind of mistakes would have been made of the people writing the specifications actually did some of the software work? I’m also very sure Boeing does not do more building than NVIDIA. These companies maintain absolute control over design, processes, materials and component sourcing, because it’s critical to their product, whereas Boeing has also outsourced all of that.
- jasode 5y ago
  >The fact that the specification was wrong might actually be a pretty good counter argument The flawed specification was done in-house by Boeing employees. That design wasn't outsourced. >your position that outsourcing doesn’t matter. That is not my position. You're misrepresenting my argument even though I've stated it clearly : The author's claim that outsourcing leads to less innovation is incomplete and flawed. Outsourcing does matter and can ruin a company. But it can also enable innovation and the author doesn't cover that scenario. That's my specific criticism of his article. >I’m also very sure Boeing does not do more building than NVIDIA. These companies maintain absolute control over design, processes, materials and component sourcing, because it’s critical to their product, whereas Boeing has also outsourced all of that. You've got that backwards. NVIDIA doesn't focus on materials science of chip fabrication. They let TSMC worry about that. NVIDIA employees focus more on engineering the instruction set, the microarchitecture, the firmware, etc. (Somewhat analogous to ARM chip design.) There have been presentations where the CEOs of both NVIDIA and TSMC are on stage together talking about their different core competencies. >, whereas Boeing has also outsourced all of that. Why do you believe that? Take a look at the Boeing open jobs list showing ~478 engineering positions: https://jobs.boeing.com/category/engineering-jobs/185-18469/11125/1 https://jobs.boeing.com/category/engineering-jobs/185-18469/... Why does Boeing hire all these engineering positions if they've outsourced everything? Let's try to level set the discussion. NVIDIA outsources the chip manufacturing to TSMC and then the whole card is outsourced to Foxconn. NVIDIA did not spend billions to build or acquire any factories. See the "NVIDIA does not manufacture anything directly, instead designs are sent to suppliers specializing in the technologies needed to create these devices, and the products are then tested for quality control." excerpt from [1] Boeing spent billions in building physical factories in Washington, North Carolina, etc. They do final assembly, stress testing of wing loads, systems integration, flight envelope testing, FAA certification, etc. Boeing outsources a lot of components but they also do a lot of in-house work. And from all this, we still conclude NVIDIA does more actual building than Boeing? >Do you think the same kind of mistakes would have been made of the people writing the specifications actually did some of the software work? There will always be a specialization of skills so expecting non-programmers such as managers to code the software is unrealistic. And yes, Tesla conceivably had a more "closed loop" of in-house software programming instead of outsourcing and they did make the same kind of mistake analogous to MCAS with a self-driving car. [1] https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=honorstheses#:~:text=NVIDIA%20does%20not%20manufacture%20anything,then%20tested%20for%20quality%20control https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1....
908B64B197 5y ago
> But if the specifications for the software were designed by Boeing management, it wouldn't have mattered where the programmers were located that actually coded it. From the investigative reports I read, it wasn't the programmers that decided 1 Angle-of-Attack sensor instead of checking 2 redundant ones -- it was the aerospace engineers and managers above the programmers. The issues that I've most often seen in working with offshored programmers vs local engineers is that the former will happily code a spec that makes no sense, while the later will almost immediately raise concerns if they see something that doesn't make sense. Maybe it's a matter of education (formal engineering vs some bootcamp) or that an engineer's signature often carries legal weight. In that case, I wonder if there was an actual engineers who reviewed what the management has requested for the MCAS or did it go straight to the 9$/hr bodyshop?

by jasode 5y ago

ssivark 5y ago

In the Boeing case, outsourcing is likely a problem not because of the geographical location of the engineers/developers, but the cost-centric mindset that drives such decisions with utter disregard for technology and technical expertise. Lots of people know the story about killing the golden goose, but few understand the metaphor for the range of actions that actually correspond to slowly strangling the goose, instead of nurturing it.

jiofih 5y ago

The fact that the specification was wrong might actually be a pretty good counter argument to your position that outsourcing doesn’t matter. Do you think the same kind of mistakes would have been made of the people writing the specifications actually did some of the software work? I’m also very sure Boeing does not do more building than NVIDIA. These companies maintain absolute control over design, processes, materials and component sourcing, because it’s critical to their product, whereas Boeing has also outsourced all of that.

jasode 5y ago
>The fact that the specification was wrong might actually be a pretty good counter argument The flawed specification was done in-house by Boeing employees. That design wasn't outsourced. >your position that outsourcing doesn’t matter. That is not my position. You're misrepresenting my argument even though I've stated it clearly : The author's claim that outsourcing leads to less innovation is incomplete and flawed. Outsourcing does matter and can ruin a company. But it can also enable innovation and the author doesn't cover that scenario. That's my specific criticism of his article. >I’m also very sure Boeing does not do more building than NVIDIA. These companies maintain absolute control over design, processes, materials and component sourcing, because it’s critical to their product, whereas Boeing has also outsourced all of that. You've got that backwards. NVIDIA doesn't focus on materials science of chip fabrication. They let TSMC worry about that. NVIDIA employees focus more on engineering the instruction set, the microarchitecture, the firmware, etc. (Somewhat analogous to ARM chip design.) There have been presentations where the CEOs of both NVIDIA and TSMC are on stage together talking about their different core competencies. >, whereas Boeing has also outsourced all of that. Why do you believe that? Take a look at the Boeing open jobs list showing ~478 engineering positions: https://jobs.boeing.com/category/engineering-jobs/185-18469/11125/1 https://jobs.boeing.com/category/engineering-jobs/185-18469/... Why does Boeing hire all these engineering positions if they've outsourced everything? Let's try to level set the discussion. NVIDIA outsources the chip manufacturing to TSMC and then the whole card is outsourced to Foxconn. NVIDIA did not spend billions to build or acquire any factories. See the "NVIDIA does not manufacture anything directly, instead designs are sent to suppliers specializing in the technologies needed to create these devices, and the products are then tested for quality control." excerpt from [1] Boeing spent billions in building physical factories in Washington, North Carolina, etc. They do final assembly, stress testing of wing loads, systems integration, flight envelope testing, FAA certification, etc. Boeing outsources a lot of components but they also do a lot of in-house work. And from all this, we still conclude NVIDIA does more actual building than Boeing? >Do you think the same kind of mistakes would have been made of the people writing the specifications actually did some of the software work? There will always be a specialization of skills so expecting non-programmers such as managers to code the software is unrealistic. And yes, Tesla conceivably had a more "closed loop" of in-house software programming instead of outsourcing and they did make the same kind of mistake analogous to MCAS with a self-driving car. [1] https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=honorstheses#:~:text=NVIDIA%20does%20not%20manufacture%20anything,then%20tested%20for%20quality%20control https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1....

908B64B197 5y ago

> But if the specifications for the software were designed by Boeing management, it wouldn't have mattered where the programmers were located that actually coded it. From the investigative reports I read, it wasn't the programmers that decided 1 Angle-of-Attack sensor instead of checking 2 redundant ones -- it was the aerospace engineers and managers above the programmers. The issues that I've most often seen in working with offshored programmers vs local engineers is that the former will happily code a spec that makes no sense, while the later will almost immediately raise concerns if they see something that doesn't make sense. Maybe it's a matter of education (formal engineering vs some bootcamp) or that an engineer's signature often carries legal weight. In that case, I wonder if there was an actual engineers who reviewed what the management has requested for the MCAS or did it go straight to the 9$/hr bodyshop?