4 ms·

The point is that Quality flows from the top down. If the people on top of the organization don't take it seriously, then it's hard for the actual working engin

The point is that Quality flows from the top down. If the people on top of the organization don't take it seriously, then it's hard for the actual working engineers to get the support they need to do their jobs. Having an engineer as the CEO at least makes it likely that that person understands what is needed and makes it happen. It's not a guarantee, but I'd trust an engineering organization with an engineer at the helm a lot more than someone with a sales background.

beAbU 3y ago
The point of the previous poster stands. They /had/ an engineer CEO and that did not mean shit.
- happytiger 3y ago
  Maybe. This whole program and its failures mostly goes back to choices made by McNerney. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/23/opinion/boeing-737max-alaska-airlines.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/23/opinion/boeing-737max-ala...
  - fuzzfactor 3y ago
    You could say that obviously most engineering types are not good enough to run an engineering company. But that wouldn't be true, in reality almost nobody is good enough to run an engineering company. Having an engineer type sure improves your odds compared to general business practitioners, though. It may be like unobtainium but if you had your choice of engineers at an aircraft company you can't do better than one whose mathematical ability puts general business leaders to shame, and who started out building planes at an early age and hasn't forgotten how for their entire career. In fact only gotten better by focusing so strongly on the finances that directly contribute to the most reliable aircraft that can be produced. Even then some will still crash. As we have seen, it's lots better without the temptation to be distracted by the general business trends that come and go, which encourage little manipulations of large resources in ways that any negative outcomes, unforseen or not, will be pushed far enough into the future for decision-makers to have fully cashed out before that time. The worst you could do is have somebody who has never participated in aircraft design, assembly, and maintenance allowed into the chain of command anywhere between the entry-level engineers and the top decision makers. It should go without saying that natural leadership ability has got to be there for it to be sensible for someone to move up the chain of command, but also it needs to be fully rewarding for highly skilled engineers to prosper progressively without having to be very near the ladder that has to be climbed leading to executive duties. As each decade goes by and people overall settle more and more for having non-leaders in leadership positions, you can't expect things to ever be the same in any way unless this pervasive defect can be reversed. It didn't get this way overnight and it can't be fixed overnight.
unethical_ban 3y ago
To reframe the point the parent made: Boeing is a special case due to the fact that those above the CEO are uniquely institutional (large investment) and the company enjoys a level of "socialized failure protection" from the US government that few other companies get. At least other companies that get cushy treatment from the US government often have more competition, like GM.

beAbU 3y ago

The point of the previous poster stands. They /had/ an engineer CEO and that did not mean shit.

happytiger 3y ago
Maybe. This whole program and its failures mostly goes back to choices made by McNerney. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/23/opinion/boeing-737max-alaska-airlines.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/23/opinion/boeing-737max-ala...
- fuzzfactor 3y ago
  You could say that obviously most engineering types are not good enough to run an engineering company. But that wouldn't be true, in reality almost nobody is good enough to run an engineering company. Having an engineer type sure improves your odds compared to general business practitioners, though. It may be like unobtainium but if you had your choice of engineers at an aircraft company you can't do better than one whose mathematical ability puts general business leaders to shame, and who started out building planes at an early age and hasn't forgotten how for their entire career. In fact only gotten better by focusing so strongly on the finances that directly contribute to the most reliable aircraft that can be produced. Even then some will still crash. As we have seen, it's lots better without the temptation to be distracted by the general business trends that come and go, which encourage little manipulations of large resources in ways that any negative outcomes, unforseen or not, will be pushed far enough into the future for decision-makers to have fully cashed out before that time. The worst you could do is have somebody who has never participated in aircraft design, assembly, and maintenance allowed into the chain of command anywhere between the entry-level engineers and the top decision makers. It should go without saying that natural leadership ability has got to be there for it to be sensible for someone to move up the chain of command, but also it needs to be fully rewarding for highly skilled engineers to prosper progressively without having to be very near the ladder that has to be climbed leading to executive duties. As each decade goes by and people overall settle more and more for having non-leaders in leadership positions, you can't expect things to ever be the same in any way unless this pervasive defect can be reversed. It didn't get this way overnight and it can't be fixed overnight.

unethical_ban 3y ago

To reframe the point the parent made: Boeing is a special case due to the fact that those above the CEO are uniquely institutional (large investment) and the company enjoys a level of "socialized failure protection" from the US government that few other companies get. At least other companies that get cushy treatment from the US government often have more competition, like GM.