Last week's poll: Boeing and the pitfalls of technology outsourcing
Share
Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner is in deep trouble, with all aircraft grounded and over 3600 flights cancelled as a result of battery fires. What conclusions should Boeing (and other companies which outsource technology development) draw from this?
We had another very large response to last week’s poll, with over 430 people registering their opinion on what conclusion Boeing might draw from its problems with fires in batteries procured for its 787 Dreamliner aircraft. The largest group of respondents, 37 per cent, went for perhaps the most obvious option — making safety tests on subsystems more stringent. The next largest group, 27 per cent, said that Boeing should embed quality control personnel within companies supplying safety-critical systems to ensure that components and systems don’t cause problems. A little over 18 per cent said that companies should avoid outsourcing by bringing as much technology development in-house as possible, while the smallest group, 17 per cent, said that more diligence is necessary when selecting companies to which technology development is outsourced.
What’s your opinion on this subject and this poll? As all the subsystems on aircraft become more complex, are there any easy answers to this question? Must aerospace companies always expect teething problems on new aircraft, and just hope that they aren’t severe enough to bring an aeroplane down mid-flight? Is there a role for more stringent inspection regimes? Let us know below.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (12)
Roger Browne | 5 Mar 2013 12:51 pm
Were the testers trying to break it or were they trying to show it works. You need the right (hard) approach to testing or you'll find that customers find too many faults!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5 Mar 2013 1:48 pm
Cannot help but draw comparison with BP
in Gulf of Mexico. Some sub-systems are
now so complex and safety critical they need stringent testing and proof of ongoing reliability.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5 Mar 2013 2:25 pm
Unfortunately, time and cost now plays a significant role in these processes. We have all been squeezed to deliver earlier. I know safety is paramount, but.....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ian Goold | 5 Mar 2013 4:52 pm
'Embedding' QC people at the supplier will have little effect if it is the same people who were charged with the same oversight once the out-sourced equipment reached the assembly line and if the testing remained the same.
More to the point, it seems the immediate system design philosophy may have been suspect. But but but, outsourcing is only one of very many factors and considerations (corporate acquisitions, headquarters relocation, limited project management experience among senior personnel [and the lost experience of half a generation of engineers who have retired since the previous new-aircraft programme], 'revolutionary' materials, reliance on IT, very ambitious schedule stimulated by competition...) that might have played a part in contributing to the programme's many delays - never mind what happened once the machine was in service.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Morkullen | 5 Mar 2013 5:52 pm
I was working for an automotive company in the 1970's when we changed battery supplier to a large 'Assured Source' supplier.We ran into dreadful problems with poor battery performance and it was not until we conducted rigorous 'in house' testing that we discovered the suppliers supposed 'assurance data' fell well below what we had been told. The moral of the story? Test before you buy and continue testing afterwards. Do not take supplier data at face value, no matter how good they may appear. Your own reputaion will depend on it!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 6 Mar 2013 8:56 am
I worked for one of the earliest UK companies to fully embrace JIT/Lean manufacturing. It quickly became clear that to increase goods incoming inspection merely invited suppliers to abdicate the inspection role to you. We stopped goods inwards inspection altogether and had a '3 strikes & out' system for suppliers. Each delivery had a random item put on the assembly line as next to be used and if it worked, the delivery was accepted. We had almost no incoming defects in a very short while. As buyers we don't pay for bad quality so why should we do the suppliers job in ensuring product is fit for purpose.
Boing seemed to have either never learned, or has forgotton how to invite suppliers to only supply good product.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 7 Mar 2013 1:01 pm
Morkullen.
I cannot believe you did not perform a thorough Supplier evaluation prior to using a new supplier. Checking their production processes and ensuring they used some kind of SPC to ensure product uniformity is paramount in ensuring reliable quality.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7 Mar 2013 4:16 pm
You get what you pay for!! Bring it all in house and have a Q.C. Team with checks and balances. Take pride in the people of your own country and quit outsourcing to other countries, you are financially cutting your own throat I would rather pay more as a consumer and know I am getting the best product. CEO's quit padding your pocket and serving us crap, have some INTEGRITY!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Morkullen | 8 Mar 2013 2:26 pm
JohnK
We did full supplier evaluation and we chose a well known UK supplier who led us up the garden path. The initial results from samples supplied and SPC data were excellent. The following production supplies, however, were rubbish and it was not until we were fully committed that problems started to emerge. We switched to a German supplier and and had no further problems. In this instance, regrettably, British engineering was was not at its best.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Anderson | 8 Mar 2013 3:34 pm
In an industry were performance is critical not only to reputation but lives at risk it seems incredulous that in house QC did not pick this problem up before it kept planes from flying. Many years ago when I was a humble JT in the RAF we had civilian QC employed by BAE systems checking everything, it certainly had the desired result.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment