The Boeing 787 Dreamliner
Monday, March 18, 2013 at 5:24PM There is an article in the February 4, 2013 issue of The New Yorker, “Financial Page: Requiem for a Dreamliner” by James Surowieki. The article is about the problems that have grounded Boeing 787 Dreamliner. The plane is relatively new. There are only fifty of these technological marvels currently in service. Regulators in the US, Japan, and elsewhere have grounded the planes due to two incidents of fires in the lithium-ion batteries that power the braking, air conditioning, and pressurization systems of the aircraft. The plane is bigger, lighter, and made of carbon fiber. It operates on 20% less fuel than its competitors. It is the most exciting and promising new aircraft in history.
Mr. Surowiecki wrote, “The Dreamliner was supposed to become famous for its revolutionary design. Instead, it’s become an object lesson in how not to build an airplane.” He presents three points to support his thesis:
- The merger of Boeing and MacDonnell Douglas:
This occurred in 1997. Boeing bought MacDonnell Douglas but MacDonnell Douglas ended up with much more influence. The Boeing culture was commercial and geared towards big and bold new product development. The MacDonnell Douglas culture, perhaps due to being more dependent on defense contracts, was more risk averse and focused on continual cost reduction. The two cultures clashed making it very hard to get consensus to launch a complex development project like the Dreamliner.
- Outsourcing of design, engineering, and manufacturing to fifty suppliers:
To get the project for this revolutionary aircraft approved, they came up with a dramatically different product development process based on large scale outsourcing. As a result, “Boeing ended up building less than forty percent of the plane.” This was supposed to be faster and less expensive. What happened was different due to the unanticipated complexity of managing these development and supply chain partners. In any system, complexity increases the chance for errors. Complex systems are simply less reliable.
Complex innovative designs require well executed project management of the new product development process. This is difficult enough using a known and proven development process. When outsourcing of an unprecedented magnitude was added, it is remarkable that this remarkable aircraft is being produced with only this battery issue.
While the outsourcing model was difficult to manage this first time, it will only be improved upon. Boeing and others will learn and improve. Technology will improve communication and project management. - A lower tolerance for failure:
These planes were grounded very quickly. Mr. Surowieki noted that “there hasn’t been a fatal airliner crash in almost four years. The safer we get, the safer we expect to be, so the performance bar keeps rising.” There was a time that infant mortality problems were tolerated. DC-10 cargo doors were a huge problem and Lockheed L-188s had wings shear off in flight. The problems were worked on while the fleet was in service. The battery problems did not result in a crash or loss of life, yet the fleet was grounded.
As of today, March 18, 2013, the fleet is still grounded. Boeing is working diligently to get a fix that eliminates, or dramatically minimizes, the risk and placates aviation regulators in the US, Japan, and other countries. A lot is at stake for Boeing. The modifications they are working on are:
The aerospace giant’s plan to fix to the 787 battery system involves insulating and spacing out parts, reducing charging levels so the battery cannot be overcharged and enclosing the lithium-ion batteries in stainless-steel cases so very little oxygen can get at them. ~ 3-15-13 LA Times
Boeing is optimistic that they are weeks rather than months away from getting the planes back into service. Needless to say, the future of the company is at stake.
At CR Supply Chain Consulting, we are looking at this more positively than Mr. Surowieki and certainly more than Boeing. First and foremost, there have been no crashes and no fatalities. Compared to the DC-10 and L-188 issues, this problem was detected quickly and the fleet was grounded almost immediately. There have been no fatal crashes in close to four years. To us, this means that regulatory and manufacturers’ measures are working. A low tolerance for failure is a good thing.
Second, the 787 Dreamliner is an engineering marvel in two ways. First, as stated above, the design of the aircraft delivers fuel savings of 20%. It is, indeed, the most exciting and promising new aircraft in history. We should be proud of this and encourage other American companies to strive for such innovations. The issue with radical new designs is that there is not a lot of experience. There is much more safety and security in development evolutionary designs. Breakthrough innovations are not as close to the previous design and as a result we cannot rely on experience to ensure performance and quality. Thus, there is more potential for quality and reliability issues as the product is designed, prototyped, released to manufacturing, and eventually enter the market place. A glitch in a new cell phone is one thing (though not necessarily to the company whose name is on the phone). A glitch in a new airplane is something different especially when it may cause a crash.
Somehow the combined Boeing and MacDonnell Douglas culture was able to create the 787 Dreamliner. Maybe instead of a culture clash, the cultures synthesized into something better. Perhaps, 1 + 1 = 3 in this case. We cannot really judge this not knowing the organization first hand. Our judgment is based solely on the innovation delivered to the marketplace. A dysfunctional organization could not have done that. Yes, the battery issue is serious, but they are dealing with it.
Lastly, there is the issue of outsourcing the design to fifty suppliers. This certainly adds complexity to the management of the project. Yet, they delivered this marvel of an airliner. Boeing somehow managed this number of suppliers. They most certainly took advantage technology that aided in project management and coordination. As innovative as the design of the Dreamliner is, the true innovation may be the Boeing design outsourcing model. If they found a way to get the best engineering companies to work together in a coordinated way, this has global implications.
Mr. Surowieki is a smart fellow. We think his “Financial Page” is a great addition to The New Yorker and we are avid readers. We just he viewed this Dreamliner issue as a glass half-empty. The CR Supply Chain Consulting view is, clearly, that the glass is half full.
Who is right? We will not know until the Dreamliners are back in service and how they perform.
Reader Comments (1)
The difference in tolerance of aircraft safety from 10 years ago is quite interesting but for the better. This all reassures travellers that they can ensure the aircraft they're flying on has been rigorously looked at to ensure it is safe.