3 ms·
I don't think the issue is really outsourcing in the sense of sending this work overseas, as contracting important functions outside of Boeing. Sending this wor
by abeppu 5y ago
I don't think the issue is really outsourcing in the sense of sending this work overseas, as contracting important functions outside of Boeing. Sending this work to an entirely US firm would also have been a problem given the way their interactions with Boeing worked:
> The coders from HCL were typically designing to specifications set by Boeing. Still, “it was controversial because it was far less efficient than Boeing engineers just writing the code,” Rabin said. Frequently, he recalled, “it took many rounds going back and forth because the code was not done correctly.”
Key attributes here are:
- The engineers at the external firm isn't necessarily incentivized to get it right the first time.
- Boeing still has to have engineers on staff to write the specs, and the evaluate the work product of the contractors _repeatedly_ to see whether it meets the specs.
- If it's wrong, it's really really costly.
In that context, I think it makes way more sense for this stuff to be built entirely by people on staff.
The article doesn't discuss it and I don't know to what degree this is still at play, but for years after the merger with McDonnell Douglas, a lot of the Boeing people were frustrated with how processes were changed to depend on many more outside firms. Most of what I have heard centered on other firms producing substantial components that previously would have been done by Boeing itself. Whenever there was an issue with some sub-assembly, the Boeing people felt that if the work hadn't been contracted out, the issue both wouldn't have happened, and would have been faster to resolve.
- bdavis__ 5y agoYou sub contract out hardware assemblies (and software) when you start feeling market pressure and your cost has grown to be competitive. Then you find, as a prime contractor, that you are still responsible for the product. You still have to maintain expertise. And, to keep the vendors in line you have to be able to at least threaten to bring the work back in house. All of this greatly reduces the cost advantage. Now days, the concept is "only sub out work that is done better than you can do; where better includes technical performance".
- coredog64 5y agoWhat I think many people fail to recognize is that all aircraft vendors outsource quite a bit and have for a long time. Neither Boeing nor Airbus make the avionics. They buy them on spec from Honeywell or Smiths. Back when I was a DS9 working in the ASL, we’d sometimes use a full software stack to try something out with pilots and airlines. But the result was a spec that went to Honeywell for implementation. And then when we got their output, we’d put those hardware boxes into our engineering sims and see if everything matched up.
- pikaynu 5y agoI like the key attributes part. The engineers are paid by the hour, so they are incentivised to have the project running for as long as possible. I don't think it's cheap to get an offshore team to do because the engineers might be cheap but the whole team + mgmt + reviewers are expensive. I have heard stories (from a person who did work in such environments) that the managers would charge a ton and do nothing basically. The work was handled by engineers and was reviewed by offshore people. Not sure what the managers were managing. There are 2 advantages of an offshore team, especially India, - Round the clock work - Contractors can be hired for a few months and don't cost as much in terms of benefits that the company needs to provide to full time employees. So when you know work is going to pour in for 2 quarters, hire a bunch of a contractors. That way you don't have to pay for the equivalent on-site staff all year. But obviously, this only shows up in quarterly financials and it's hard to judge the quality of the product over multiple years and iterations which is abused.