3 ms·

We haven’t gotten smarter or dumber. But we have exceeded our ability to communicate the ideas and concepts, let alone the instructions of how to build and man

We haven’t gotten smarter or dumber. But we have exceeded our ability to communicate the ideas and concepts, let alone the instructions of how to build and manage things. Example: a junior Jiffy Lube high school dropout in 1960 could work hard and eventually own that store. Everything he would ever need to know about ICE engines was simple enough to understand over time… but now? There are 400 oil types, there are closed source computers on top computers, there are specialty tools for every vehicle brand, and you can’t do anything at all without knowing 10 different do-work-just-to-do-more-work systems. The high school dropout in 2024, will never own the store. Same kid. He hasn’t gotten dumber. The world just left him by in complexity. Likewise… I suspect that Boeing hasn’t forgotten how to build planes, but the complexity has exceeded their ability. No human being on earth could be put in a room and make a 747 even over infinite time. It’s a product of far too many abstract concepts in a million different places that have come together to make a thing. We make super complex things with zero effort put into communicating how or why they work a way they do. We increase the complexity just to do it. And I feel we are hitting our limits.

PaulHoule 2y ago
The problem w/ Boeing is not the inability of people to manage complexity but of management's refusal to manage complexity in a responsible way. For instance, MCAS on the 737 is a half-baked implementation of the flight envelope protection facility on modern fly-by-wire airliners (all of them, except for the 737). The A320 had some growing pains with this, particularly it had at least two accidents where pilots tried to fly the plane into the ground, thought it would fail because of the flight envelope protection system, but they succeeded and crashed anyway. Barring that bit of perversity right out of the Normal Accidents book, people understand perfectly well how to build a safe fly-by-wire system. Boeing chose not to do that, and they refused to properly document what they did. Boeing chose to not develop a 737 replacement, so all of us are suffering: in terms of noise, for instance, pilots are going deaf, passengers have their head spinning after a few hours in the plane, and people on the ground have no idea that the 737 is much louder than competitors.
- hypeatei 2y ago
  Okay but your entire comment is riddled with mentions of complex systems (flight envelope system?) which proves the point of the parent comment. "Management" here is a group of humans who need to deal with all the complexity of corporate structures, government regulations, etc.. while also dealing with the complexities of the products themselves. We're all fallible beings.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Boeing management is in the business of selling contracts. They are not in the business of making airplanes. That is the problem. They relocated headquarters from Seattle to Chicago and now DC so that they can focus on their priority, contracts. They dumped Boeing's original management style and grafted on the management style of a company that was forced to merge with Boeing. They diversified supply chain as a form of kickbacks to local governments/companies that bought their 'contracts'. They enshiftified every area of the company, all with the priority/goal of selling their core product, 'contracts', and filling their 'book'. We are plenty capable of designing Engineering systems, PLMs to manage EBOMs, MRP/ERP systems to manage MBOMs, etc to handle the complexities of building aircraft. What we can't help is the human desire to prioritize enshitfication if it means a bigger paycheck. Companies no longer exist to create a product, and the product is becoming secondary and tertiary in management's priorities, with management expecting someone else to take care of the 'small details' of why the company exists in the first place.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Boeing is a kickbacks company in a really strange way. They get contracts based on including agreements to source partly from the contracties local area. Adding complexity for contracts and management bonus sake, not efficiency, not redundancy, not expertise. Add onto that a non-existent safety culture and a non-manufacturing/non-aerospace focused management philosophy grafting on from a company that failed and had to be merged into Boeing replacing the previous Boeing management philosophy. Enshitifaction in every area of the company. Heck they moved headquarters from Seattle to Chicago, and now from Chicago to DC. Prioritizing being where the grift is over, you know, being where the functions of the company are so that management has a daily understanding of what the company does. Because to management what the company does is win contracts, not build aerospace products. 'Someone else' takes care of that detail, according to Boeing management. Building those products in now secondary/tertiary to management. I did ERP/MPR/EBOM/MBOM/BOM systems for aerospace. We have that stuff down. We have systems for this kind of communication down really well. We can build within a small window an airplane with thousands of parts with lead times from 1 day to 3 months to over a year for certain custom config options, with each parts design/FAA approval/manufacturing/installation tracked and audited. Boeing's issue is culture, not humanity's ability to make complex systems. But I do agree that there is a complexity issue in society in general, and a lot of systems are coasting on the efforts of those that originally put them in place/designed them. A lot of government seems to be this way too. There's also a lot of overhead for overheads sake, but little process auditing/iterative improvement style management.
lawlessone 2y ago
>Example: a junior Jiffy Lube high school dropout in 1960 c Nowadays the company wouldn't hire a junior to train. They'll only poach already experienced people from their competitors. Paying for training isn't considered worthwhile to the company because people wont stay. People won't stay because the company doesn't invest in employees , it only poaches.

PaulHoule 2y ago

The problem w/ Boeing is not the inability of people to manage complexity but of management's refusal to manage complexity in a responsible way. For instance, MCAS on the 737 is a half-baked implementation of the flight envelope protection facility on modern fly-by-wire airliners (all of them, except for the 737). The A320 had some growing pains with this, particularly it had at least two accidents where pilots tried to fly the plane into the ground, thought it would fail because of the flight envelope protection system, but they succeeded and crashed anyway. Barring that bit of perversity right out of the Normal Accidents book, people understand perfectly well how to build a safe fly-by-wire system. Boeing chose not to do that, and they refused to properly document what they did. Boeing chose to not develop a 737 replacement, so all of us are suffering: in terms of noise, for instance, pilots are going deaf, passengers have their head spinning after a few hours in the plane, and people on the ground have no idea that the 737 is much louder than competitors.

hypeatei 2y ago
Okay but your entire comment is riddled with mentions of complex systems (flight envelope system?) which proves the point of the parent comment. "Management" here is a group of humans who need to deal with all the complexity of corporate structures, government regulations, etc.. while also dealing with the complexities of the products themselves. We're all fallible beings.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Boeing management is in the business of selling contracts. They are not in the business of making airplanes. That is the problem. They relocated headquarters from Seattle to Chicago and now DC so that they can focus on their priority, contracts. They dumped Boeing's original management style and grafted on the management style of a company that was forced to merge with Boeing. They diversified supply chain as a form of kickbacks to local governments/companies that bought their 'contracts'. They enshiftified every area of the company, all with the priority/goal of selling their core product, 'contracts', and filling their 'book'. We are plenty capable of designing Engineering systems, PLMs to manage EBOMs, MRP/ERP systems to manage MBOMs, etc to handle the complexities of building aircraft. What we can't help is the human desire to prioritize enshitfication if it means a bigger paycheck. Companies no longer exist to create a product, and the product is becoming secondary and tertiary in management's priorities, with management expecting someone else to take care of the 'small details' of why the company exists in the first place.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

Boeing is a kickbacks company in a really strange way. They get contracts based on including agreements to source partly from the contracties local area. Adding complexity for contracts and management bonus sake, not efficiency, not redundancy, not expertise. Add onto that a non-existent safety culture and a non-manufacturing/non-aerospace focused management philosophy grafting on from a company that failed and had to be merged into Boeing replacing the previous Boeing management philosophy. Enshitifaction in every area of the company. Heck they moved headquarters from Seattle to Chicago, and now from Chicago to DC. Prioritizing being where the grift is over, you know, being where the functions of the company are so that management has a daily understanding of what the company does. Because to management what the company does is win contracts, not build aerospace products. 'Someone else' takes care of that detail, according to Boeing management. Building those products in now secondary/tertiary to management. I did ERP/MPR/EBOM/MBOM/BOM systems for aerospace. We have that stuff down. We have systems for this kind of communication down really well. We can build within a small window an airplane with thousands of parts with lead times from 1 day to 3 months to over a year for certain custom config options, with each parts design/FAA approval/manufacturing/installation tracked and audited. Boeing's issue is culture, not humanity's ability to make complex systems. But I do agree that there is a complexity issue in society in general, and a lot of systems are coasting on the efforts of those that originally put them in place/designed them. A lot of government seems to be this way too. There's also a lot of overhead for overheads sake, but little process auditing/iterative improvement style management.

lawlessone 2y ago

>Example: a junior Jiffy Lube high school dropout in 1960 c Nowadays the company wouldn't hire a junior to train. They'll only poach already experienced people from their competitors. Paying for training isn't considered worthwhile to the company because people wont stay. People won't stay because the company doesn't invest in employees , it only poaches.