2 ms·

1.) General consensus is "too many outside contractors, not enough QA." Outsourcing taken too far, essentially. 2.) No.

gvb 14y ago
1+) The 787 was three BHAGs[1] in terms of... a) Fuel economy: drove the primarily composite structure (causing much angst during development), drove using the lighter weight lithium batteries which is the current issue, etc. A 20% fuel improvement is incredibly ambitious goal (I say is because last I heard they were still falling short, although still remarkable at ~15%(?)). b) Cost (sharing): drove the huge number of outside contractors, all or most of whom invested a substantial amount of their own money in the pieces parts that they designed and built for the 787. c) Schedule. Total miss. The schedule was predicated on no major problems... in hindsight the (a) and (b) BHAGs guaranteed the schedule miss. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal
- yread 14y ago
  ANA said in a statement that their 787s are 21% more fuel efficient per seat than a 767
hef19898 14y ago
Additional remark to point 1): Back then before Boeing got all the trouble they had with the immense outsourcing, this approach was seen as THE way to go in supply chain management for highly complex products. Some parts of EADS still used the B787 programme as a model of suppliers and contract management last year. After Boeing was obliged to buy out a couple of there joint-ventures and suppliers. Completely agree on the fact that the Dreamliner wanted to much things at the same time. I only beg to differ on the "not enough QA" part. I don't exactly know how Boeings QA looks like, but assume that aerospace QA is more or less similar in the western world since everyone is dealing with the FAA and JAA in one way or the other. And from my experience it's not "not enough" QA but the wrong QA. In some parts of supplier related QA the point was reached where people cared more about paper work and certificates (to the point where the use of ";" instead of "," in a text field blocked whole deliveries for days) than the actual part. And further assume that the paperwork of what ever part in flying piece of tech that failed was ok. Downside is, the more time QA spends on paer work the less time QA spends on assuring the parts are good. Not that this is a probale cause for the battery issue on hand, so.

gvb 14y ago

1+) The 787 was three BHAGs[1] in terms of... a) Fuel economy: drove the primarily composite structure (causing much angst during development), drove using the lighter weight lithium batteries which is the current issue, etc. A 20% fuel improvement is incredibly ambitious goal (I say is because last I heard they were still falling short, although still remarkable at ~15%(?)). b) Cost (sharing): drove the huge number of outside contractors, all or most of whom invested a substantial amount of their own money in the pieces parts that they designed and built for the 787. c) Schedule. Total miss. The schedule was predicated on no major problems... in hindsight the (a) and (b) BHAGs guaranteed the schedule miss. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal

yread 14y ago
ANA said in a statement that their 787s are 21% more fuel efficient per seat than a 767

hef19898 14y ago

Additional remark to point 1): Back then before Boeing got all the trouble they had with the immense outsourcing, this approach was seen as THE way to go in supply chain management for highly complex products. Some parts of EADS still used the B787 programme as a model of suppliers and contract management last year. After Boeing was obliged to buy out a couple of there joint-ventures and suppliers. Completely agree on the fact that the Dreamliner wanted to much things at the same time. I only beg to differ on the "not enough QA" part. I don't exactly know how Boeings QA looks like, but assume that aerospace QA is more or less similar in the western world since everyone is dealing with the FAA and JAA in one way or the other. And from my experience it's not "not enough" QA but the wrong QA. In some parts of supplier related QA the point was reached where people cared more about paper work and certificates (to the point where the use of ";" instead of "," in a text field blocked whole deliveries for days) than the actual part. And further assume that the paperwork of what ever part in flying piece of tech that failed was ok. Downside is, the more time QA spends on paer work the less time QA spends on assuring the parts are good. Not that this is a probale cause for the battery issue on hand, so.