4 ms·

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 sa

by 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....
- tremon 5y ago
  The flawed specification was done in-house by Boeing employees. That design wasn't outsourced. I think you may have glossed over this point of the article: If you separate the thinking about things from the doing of things, then innovation will suffer. The article is arguing that the specification might have been flawed because the company doesn't have in-house manufacturing expertise any more -- there was not enough knowledge left to validate the designs.
  - jasode 5y ago
    >The article is arguing that the specification might have been flawed because the company doesn't have in-house manufacturing expertise any more -- there was not enough knowledge left to validate the designs. Similar to Boeing, Airbus also outsources their components. See example list of A350 subcontractors: https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/a350wxb#0 https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/a350wxb#0 Even though Airbus also outsources the flight control systems, they did not make the same mistake of only using 1 AOA Angle-of-Attach sensor in computations. It doesn't mean Airbus is perfect. Some observers think Airbus' deliberate decision to decouple the pilot and co-pilot joysticks to not show synchronized physical feedback is a flaw which contributed to the 2009 Air France 447 crash. The co-pilot mistakenly pulled the joystick back the entire time and the senior pilot was unaware of it. Consequently, Gulfstream Aerospace (they also outsource many components including flight controls to Honeywell) decided to not copy Airbus' design for the new 500/600 business jets and instead, coupled both joysticks together with force feedback so the both pilots have physical sensation of what the other pilot is doing. So instead of thinking "outsourcing leads to bad outcomes", there's an alternative explanation of "good or bad outcomes regardless of outsourcing". E.g. Blaming the "outsourcing" can't explain the good & bad outcomes when you study all the case studies of Airbus, Gulfstream, Tesla, Nvidia, etc. .EDIT reply to : >The scale of outsourcing Boeing has done for the 787 is not comparable to AB (or anyone else). They outsourced core competencies, wing design, materials, software, basically everything, I still don't understand why we begin the analysis by the amount of outsourcing and working backwards from that to conclude that the 787 is a worse airplane. Instead, why can't we consider that the 787 may be be considered superior to Airbus A330 by pilots and airliners. The more heavily outsourced 787 can also be superior to the 737-MAX in-house wing design. >, and it pretty much aligns with the point the author is making: you can’t innovate / design if you don’t know how your products are made. Similar to Boeing 787 carbon composite wings being outsourced in Japan potentially being superior to Airbus in-house designs... AMD outsources more than Intel (because AMD outsourced to TSMC) and AMD Neoverse outperforms Intel Xeon. AMD out innovated Intel. Intel is so behind that they've made public statements of possibly outsourcing their chip fab in the future. But the AMD innovation story does not align with author's point. See the flaw in his analysis?

by jiofih 5y ago

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....

tremon 5y ago
The flawed specification was done in-house by Boeing employees. That design wasn't outsourced. I think you may have glossed over this point of the article: If you separate the thinking about things from the doing of things, then innovation will suffer. The article is arguing that the specification might have been flawed because the company doesn't have in-house manufacturing expertise any more -- there was not enough knowledge left to validate the designs.
- jasode 5y ago
  >The article is arguing that the specification might have been flawed because the company doesn't have in-house manufacturing expertise any more -- there was not enough knowledge left to validate the designs. Similar to Boeing, Airbus also outsources their components. See example list of A350 subcontractors: https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/a350wxb#0 https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/a350wxb#0 Even though Airbus also outsources the flight control systems, they did not make the same mistake of only using 1 AOA Angle-of-Attach sensor in computations. It doesn't mean Airbus is perfect. Some observers think Airbus' deliberate decision to decouple the pilot and co-pilot joysticks to not show synchronized physical feedback is a flaw which contributed to the 2009 Air France 447 crash. The co-pilot mistakenly pulled the joystick back the entire time and the senior pilot was unaware of it. Consequently, Gulfstream Aerospace (they also outsource many components including flight controls to Honeywell) decided to not copy Airbus' design for the new 500/600 business jets and instead, coupled both joysticks together with force feedback so the both pilots have physical sensation of what the other pilot is doing. So instead of thinking "outsourcing leads to bad outcomes", there's an alternative explanation of "good or bad outcomes regardless of outsourcing". E.g. Blaming the "outsourcing" can't explain the good & bad outcomes when you study all the case studies of Airbus, Gulfstream, Tesla, Nvidia, etc. .EDIT reply to : >The scale of outsourcing Boeing has done for the 787 is not comparable to AB (or anyone else). They outsourced core competencies, wing design, materials, software, basically everything, I still don't understand why we begin the analysis by the amount of outsourcing and working backwards from that to conclude that the 787 is a worse airplane. Instead, why can't we consider that the 787 may be be considered superior to Airbus A330 by pilots and airliners. The more heavily outsourced 787 can also be superior to the 737-MAX in-house wing design. >, and it pretty much aligns with the point the author is making: you can’t innovate / design if you don’t know how your products are made. Similar to Boeing 787 carbon composite wings being outsourced in Japan potentially being superior to Airbus in-house designs... AMD outsources more than Intel (because AMD outsourced to TSMC) and AMD Neoverse outperforms Intel Xeon. AMD out innovated Intel. Intel is so behind that they've made public statements of possibly outsourcing their chip fab in the future. But the AMD innovation story does not align with author's point. See the flaw in his analysis?