Photo by John McArthur on Unsplash
Social Sharing block
Disasters can act as brutal audits of organizations to which even venerable institutions like Boeing are subject. In the wake of two fatal crashes, as well as a midflight door blowout, Boeing has shaken up its C-suite and pledged to prioritize safety over profit.
|
ADVERTISEMENT |
Will these measures solve its problems? We address this question in the context of operations, safety, and organizational economics. Drawing on a wide body of research and experience, we consider not only Boeing’s actions but also those of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Our analysis goes beyond Boeing’s merger with McDonnell Douglas and the corporate culture that emerged. We doubt that current remedial actions by Boeing and the FAA will “fix” Boeing, and we suggest measures that could help.
What we can learn—and not learn—from Boeing
First, appointing Stephanie Pope as the president of its commercial airplanes division will only give Boeing more of the same. Like outgoing CEO Dave Calhoun, Pope is an accounting graduate who spent much of her career in finance.
…
Comments
Professional engineering requirements would help
Re: "Regulators could also impose requirements, such as mandating professional engineer certification for key tasks, which would force Boeing to think twice before letting employees go."
Engineering is a regulated profession (like medicine) so PEs are answerable to state licensing boards as well as employers. https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics "If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate." This means that, even if other employees are free to look the other way if somebody is cutting corners on quality to the extent of creating a risk to safety (this does not mean they should do so), a PE is not.
Boeing Fix
Thank you for this article on issues at Boeing, and to the links you provided to additional information of interest. In particular the number of engineers and machinists laid off, gambling that would lead to better financial performance.
I am a graduate of Montana State University in Engineering Physics, along with an MBA from UC Berkeley and a PhD in Industrial Engineering from Northwestern. For a long time Montana State placed more engineers at Boeing than any university except the local University of Washington, a source of great pride for a small university. I worked in manufacturing technical, environmental and quality positions for 40 years. At one point I was a quality engineer for a Boeing supplier. During this time, I completed their excellent course on Root Cause Analysis and also received a Certificate of Appreciation for Assistance with the Boeing AS9100 Program. One of our employees had a bumper sticker on his car reading, "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going." It is now sad to see what has happened to one of our national treasures.
P.S. I don't agree that requiring engineers be Registered will necessarily help. Union membership may provide more leverage. But without better choice of leaders at all levels there is no guarantee of improvement in quality or safety. An increased emphasis on DEI and ESG rather than merit at Boeing increases the likelihood of the company's continued struggles.
DEI Hiring
Bill- I believe you are mistaken on the impact of DEI and ESG in hiring in general. Without DEI, ESG, and AA (That's affirmative action, not Alcoholics Anonymous) many qualified individuals are never afforded the opportunity to compete on their merits. And those who are left being favored without these initiatives will sometimes find a sense of superiority and complacency in their positions. Myself, I'd rather hire an individual who had to work a bit harder for their success.
DEI Hiring
Mike- I'm all in favor of hard work. But hiring managers have to consider the likelihood of a candidate working hard to improve quality and safety in Boeing's case. The HR department in my experience often has other issues in mind, even to the point of recommending someone who may work hard at disrupting others during pursuit of company needs. My focus always has been on whose education and work experience best fits the company's current needs, secondly on the content of their character, and way last the color of their skin.
Accountability
Interesting.
Although a bit confused on why they recommend: "At the very least, the roles of the CEO and the accountable executive for safety performance at Boeing should be vested in different people"
The accountable person is with whom the buck stops. That should be the CEO. In fact, it might be better if CEO is accountable solely for safety, as that is now a strategic priority for survival of Boeing as its reputation takes a hit repeatedly. If it's another person, where will they be? Above CEO or as Director?
Bigger Issues than Boeing
Being a former military man, I fully believe that the CEO should always be held accountable to everything that happens under his or her watch...period. However, there should be a C-suite level person who has responsibility and accountability for reliability and safety of systems. This person should not just be focused on mechanical safety but also include the human factors (i.e., considerations of pilots, mechanics, engineers, etc.).
However, to me the problem with Boeing is inherent in the dual and contradictory mandate of FAA's mission, which is reflected in the ODA process. Any time you have a program which allows the fox to guard the henhouse with the farmer checking in with the fox and not the hens, you will have problems. I understand that is a bit of a harsh judgment as it is not completely as black and white as that, but it is practically like that. I am also aware that other government organizations use similar approaches (e.g., USDA person-in-plant). It works fine until it doesn't, but changing it is a beast because the industry likes it, and the agencies are often powerless to change it without external advocacy.
Lastly, I am concerned that we have bigger problems that are being overshadowed by the focus on Boeing. For example, how are other aircraft manufacturers doing as far as safety compared to Boeing? Let's for a moment remove the huge disaster that was 737 800 MAX MCAS and look at other mechanical issues. Is there really a difference between Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, etc.? I genuinely do not know. Don't get me wrong; Boeing has earned the scrutiny they are getting. They have a lot more to do for me to trust them the way I used to. But like most people, I board the planes that are given to me because there is the practical reality that if I want to fly, I don't have much of a choice regarding the airplanes. I am also aware that we still have the safest air system in the world. It is getting a little teensy bit less safe though. Runway incursions, near-misses, and general air traffic control mishaps are all higher than they have been in a while. Our ATC system is outdated, and controllers and pilots are understaffed and overworked. We cannot continue to place faith on a system that relies on heroic human action to prevent the next disaster. Let's not allow Boeing to take our eyes off of the big picture...air travel safety.
Add new comment