Be careful.That Boeing chose to put an accountant in charge also speaks volumes.
Be careful.That Boeing chose to put an accountant in charge also speaks volumes.
That is the most brain dead, say nothing statement ever. Thank you Boeing for literally just defining “undocumented” lolWith respect to documentation, if the door plug removal was undocumented there would be no documentation to share.
When the NTSB Chair calls Boeing out publicly saying they are being uncooperative because they haven’t providing documentation for the door removal how would you expect Boeing to respond when the documentation doesn’t exist? It seems like a dumbed down statement is what the NTSB chair needed in order to understand why.That is the most brain dead, say nothing statement ever. Thank you Boeing for literally just defining “undocumented” lol
Then why use the word “if” (as HalfFast said)? Either the documentation exists or it doesn’t. Say whether it does or doesn’t.When the NTSB Chair calls Boeing out publicly saying they are being uncooperative because they haven’t providing documentation for the door removal how would you expect Boeing to respond when the documentation doesn’t exist? It seems like a dumbed down statement is what the NTSB chair needed in order to understand why.
FIFY
This part is utter BS:
NTSB investigators do not know who on the Boeing assembly line removed and reinstalled the door plug...You mean to tell me Boeing doesn't know who was at work that day and they have no time and attendance records and no accounting of who charged the rework charge number and no one signed an approval for the work??!! I gotta admit, it takes some serious cajones to lie like that.
I'll note that what Boeing said is actually "if" there are no records.
Boeing followed up with a statement: "With respect to documentation, if the door plug removal was undocumented there would be no documentation to share.So we're supposed to think that Boeing does undocumented R&R on an airliner? I'm sure their potential customers (if any are left) are going to love that one!
If documentation/process for the plug never existed, can we really fault who opened the plug? If this was considered a door for MX purposes, would anyone think twice about just opening it?
Rroot of the problem. This isn’t a door that you can see is closed. So yes, if documentation isn’t required for a part that needs to be bolted into place then it’s Boeings fault. But I’m guessing documentation was required - so it’s Boeings fault for lack of training and oversight, and lack of quality control to notice the confirmation / paperwork was missing.
Accountants have lots to contribute to the world and often do a great job at the helm of a business. That said I do see validity to ensuring the senior leadership of an engineering company are engineers.Be careful.
Footage of Boeing press conference…That is the most brain dead, say nothing statement ever. Thank you Boeing for literally just defining “undocumented” lol
You have got to get a part time job teaching at a college. So many people don't understand this.Jack Welch was an engineer. I think time has now proven his legacy.
Accountants can ruin companies. Engineers can ruin companies. It comes down to the person and their motivation (and leadership). Scapegoating a profession is just done through frustration. I could write a book about my dealings with engineers.
Great post!... THE most important thing was "What is the overall Business Objective". 9 out of 10 marketing people couldn't articulate it. Everything follows that. IF it is "to make as much money as possible", then ok - just burn the plant down and collect the insurance money. IF it is "to make the most liked commercial", then ok - just spend tons of money for something entertaining that has no impact on sales.
IF your goal is to build the most advance airliner in the world, you end up with the L10-11, which while amazing almost destroyed Lockeed.
Need to be financially successful by building what the customer needs and wants - in this case an airplane that is error free, inexpensive to operate and maintain, reliably performs to set standards, and can be produced so that a profit can be made. Not easy - but that's why they get paid what they do.
True innovation requires building something that customers didn't know was possible. Either meet a need that they didn't know they had, or come up with a new solution for their problem that they never thought about before. Customers don't know what new concepts and technology that may be available to solve their problem, so they can only articulate their needs and wants through the lens of what's already on the market.
Perhaps Boeing would have been better off giving their customers what they actually needed, as opposed to what they were asking for.Yes, but only for certain customers. These aren’t cell phones. I might argue that many business models, and likely much of the domestic air service market, customers are not looking for revolutionary change, but maintaining their conservative, low risk status quo with minimal change.
Example is the MAX series, as multiple customers flat out rejected a new type certificate and demanded minimal changes to training, service, and parts. From an overall cost perspective they only wanted to supplement their fleet with incrementally higher pax capacity and lower fuel usage.
How Boeing executed this is an entirely different discussion.
Customers have no idea what they want, and they won't tell you even even you ask them directly. According to market research and focus groups, New Coke is exactly what was needed to save Coca Cola from being destroyed by Pepsi gobbling up its market share. Neither of those things happened.Great post!
I'm going to take a small exception to the bolded, however. You must always build what the customer needs, but if you wait for it to be what they want, you are behind the curve.
True innovation requires building something that customers didn't know was possible. Either meet a need that they didn't know they had, or come up with a new solution for their problem that they never thought about before. Customers don't know what new concepts and technology that may be available to solve their problem, so they can only articulate their needs and wants through the lens of what's already on the market.
View attachment 126695
As a side note, I would never expect marketing people to understand the business objectives for purposes of product development. That is the job of a product manager or business GM. Once the business objective has been set, it is the marketer's job to execute the customer-facing portion of the plan through demand creation, advertising, and brand/image management.
Customers have no idea what they want, and they won't tell you even even you ask them directly. According to market research and focus groups, New Coke is exactly what was needed to save Coca Cola from being destroyed by Pepsi gobbling up its market share. Neither of those things happened.
I agree that when creating a product, any product, for a specific customer(s), their input must be taken into account. And yet in both of your examples, the customers regularly **** it up and order what they don't actually need/want.Marketing airliners is a bit different from marketing soda.
Purchasers of very expensive commercial and military jets tend to be well-informed, have their own experts, know the state of art in related technologies, have completed their own detailed needs analysis, etc., etc. There can be some dialogue and give-&-take, but trying to tell them they’re wrong and really need something entirely different will come across as arrogance.
the customers regularly **** it up and order what they don't actually need/want.
So Boeing just "loses" the records. This is an improvement from the Douglas just forging them on the DC-10.
I was there when this happened. They actually by passed the MR department who would have explained what a stupid a$& idea that was. They did blind taste tests. Idiots.Customers have no idea what they want, and they won't tell you even even you ask them directly. According to market research and focus groups, New Coke is exactly what was needed to save Coca Cola from being destroyed by Pepsi gobbling up its market share. Neither of those things happened.
British airplane makers designed a mega piston prop plane for the British airlines post WWII per their specific request. Then they bought the 707 because when they saw it they then knew they needed it. If you offer something new that makes someone more money they’ll more that likely buy it.True, but that doesn’t mean you can convince them of that in a competitive market where other companies are happy to sell them what they want.
The time for informing and persuading is years before the first dollar of development funding becomes available. If you wait for the BAA, for example, you’re waaaay too late.
Oh my god. New Coke. I am *still* angry about that.
I know you're kidding, but I believe it's absolutely true that the people on this forum are smarter than the average C level exec. More selfish? Perhaps not. But that's not what this is really all about.Online pilot group reinvents business theory, news at 11.
Ahem....you might consider the fact that some of the people on this forum ARE average C level execs.I know you're kidding, but I believe it's absolutely true that the people on this forum are smarter than the average C level exec.