4 ms·

Of course Boeing will say it’s key. Can I just quote back from the same article? > Boeing delegated to Mitsubishi of Japan a big slice of the design work. How

by jiofih 5y ago

Of course Boeing will say it’s key. Can I just quote back from the same article? > Boeing delegated to Mitsubishi of Japan a big slice of the design work. How can that “100%” be true… these are all just empty words. > If 10 or 15 years from now the world’s leading authority on this kind of structure is in Japan, then you can’t reallocate your resources to do that work,” Sorscher said. “You are dependent on them.” This is part of the point the original article makes. Nothing here disproves it. The fact that Boeing succeeded (despite several production issues) doesn’t mean they won’t fall victim to the innovation issues that will result from offshoring engineering knowledge.

jasode 5y ago
>How can that “100%” be true… these are all just empty words. Seems like reasonable interpretation is that the shape of the wing was 100% Boeing aerodynamic engineers. So the simulations and computational fluid dynamics to design the external flight characteristics was Boeing. But the internal spar structure and key reinforcements for the carbon fiber structure was Mitsubishi. >this kind of structure is in Japan, then you can’t reallocate your resources to do that work,” Sorscher said. “You are dependent on them.” >This is part of the point the original article makes. Nothing here disproves it.* But Boeing recently built a new factory in Seattle to build new carbon fiber wings in-house: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/at-boeings-777x-wing-factory-robots-get-big-jobs/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/at-bo... >Boeing [...] fall victim to the innovation issues that will result from offshoring engineering knowledge. But Boeing didn't have in-house knowledge to build a carbon fiber wing so there was no expertise to offshore. To get around that limitation, Boeing seemed to execute a very shrewd business playbook: (1) 2003 : currently have knowledge on building metal wings in Seattle but no expertise on manufacturing new carbon fiber wings (2) 2004 : outsource carbon fiber wing manufacturer to Mitsubishi Japan.[1] This also attracts support from Japan government and Japan Airlines to be first key customers of the new plane. Mitsubishi also helps pay billions for development of the new carbon fiber wing. (3) 2016 : Boeing builds its own carbon fiber plant in Seattle to switch from outsourcing to inhouse production of the carbon composite wings.[2] (4) Boeing is no longer dependent on an outsourced supplier for a carbon wing This thread's article doesn't cover the above scenario either. So lessons learned are: (1) Outsource a key component you're not familiar with. (2) If it later proves to have strategic value, bring it in house. Boeing used outsourcing to become more innovative -- which is the opposite situation the thread's article was complaining about. He writes paragraphs lamenting about companies outsourcing MS Office 365 but doesn't really dig into business case studies that don't match his thesis. [1] https://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1488182&language=en https://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1488182&langu... [2] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/at-boeings-777x-wing-factory-robots-get-big-jobs/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/at-bo...

by jiofih 5y ago

jasode 5y ago

>How can that “100%” be true… these are all just empty words. Seems like reasonable interpretation is that the shape of the wing was 100% Boeing aerodynamic engineers. So the simulations and computational fluid dynamics to design the external flight characteristics was Boeing. But the internal spar structure and key reinforcements for the carbon fiber structure was Mitsubishi. >this kind of structure is in Japan, then you can’t reallocate your resources to do that work,” Sorscher said. “You are dependent on them.” >This is part of the point the original article makes. Nothing here disproves it.* But Boeing recently built a new factory in Seattle to build new carbon fiber wings in-house: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/at-boeings-777x-wing-factory-robots-get-big-jobs/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/at-bo... >Boeing [...] fall victim to the innovation issues that will result from offshoring engineering knowledge. But Boeing didn't have in-house knowledge to build a carbon fiber wing so there was no expertise to offshore. To get around that limitation, Boeing seemed to execute a very shrewd business playbook: (1) 2003 : currently have knowledge on building metal wings in Seattle but no expertise on manufacturing new carbon fiber wings (2) 2004 : outsource carbon fiber wing manufacturer to Mitsubishi Japan.[1] This also attracts support from Japan government and Japan Airlines to be first key customers of the new plane. Mitsubishi also helps pay billions for development of the new carbon fiber wing. (3) 2016 : Boeing builds its own carbon fiber plant in Seattle to switch from outsourcing to inhouse production of the carbon composite wings.[2] (4) Boeing is no longer dependent on an outsourced supplier for a carbon wing This thread's article doesn't cover the above scenario either. So lessons learned are: (1) Outsource a key component you're not familiar with. (2) If it later proves to have strategic value, bring it in house. Boeing used outsourcing to become more innovative -- which is the opposite situation the thread's article was complaining about. He writes paragraphs lamenting about companies outsourcing MS Office 365 but doesn't really dig into business case studies that don't match his thesis. [1] https://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1488182&language=en https://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1488182&langu... [2] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/at-boeings-777x-wing-factory-robots-get-big-jobs/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/at-bo...