However much you can "save" by outsourcing...in a sufficiently fraud-plagued business environment, it's seldom worth it longer-term.
Conveniently, modern businesses and their leaders are judged and rewarded purely on short-term metrics.
Conveniently, modern businesses and their leaders are judged and rewarded purely on short-term metrics.
I agree that it's a little bonkers that Boeing spun off it's own aerostructures, but since it seems like Boeing has it's own problems with internal fraudulent inspection reports, this sure doesn't seem like an out sourcing problem per-se.
Buying from an untrusted source without any verification of your own in place.
> Buying your titanium from a titanium supplier?
For all we know they bought it on wish.com.
> Is Spirit supposed to be refine and foundry all their own metal alloys?
Random sampling of materials to determine if the delivery is fit for purpose should be the absolute minimum.
The parent is blaming quality control steps of outsourced materials at Boeing (not third party).
"Outsourcing = bad" is missing the point.
The parent said that the quality control should be on the supplier, not Boeing. This is instead of a joint problem with Boeing validating.
Look at the repercussions.
Boeing gambled on shaving procurement oversight and lost.
It sort of makes sense to me with SpaceX. They’re presumably buying fairly boutique parts that likely already require custom manufacturing, so someone is spending capital either way. I can see how it might make sense for them to build a custom manufacturing line instead of paying someone else.
That seems odd for commodities like titanium, though. Even if Boeing were to do it themselves, that oversight process is already a subset of the mining and refining process. They’re going to have to build out their QA lab either way.
1. That doesn't make outsourcing "bad" before the cost benefit analysis. Commenters above are broadly blaming outsourcing.
2. As a thought experiment, specialized suppliers could be able to manage risks and costs cheaper due to absolute advantages. That's the whole point of outsourcing.
3. Mitigating the consequential and indirect damages to Boeing from this identity crisis could easily (my SWAG) justify hundreds of millions of dollars (another SWAG) in spend on better quality control audits.
How is your question relevant?
Source?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance...
This is just hillbilly mom-and-pop bullshit.
Outsourcing is mandatory if you are a company in aerospace. How would you even start making an airplane without outsourcing?
But, just like that fraud-plagued business environment, scale is what really matters. If you had 10X fewer suppliers, each with 10X fewer second-tiers, and so on down the chain...then how much easier would it be for Purchasing's QC people to stop sub-spec crap from reaching your factory floor?
The retailers job used to be offering the best value to their customers by filtering out the crap that was too cheap or overpriced.
Even ignoring the political question of how things could be changed in practice, I am struggling to imagine ways to align incentives better.
For the division chief who smashed their targets, got a big bonus and a promotion, and used it to jump to a higher-paying role at another company? You better believe it was worth it!