[jackhack]

How many times must we re-learn "Good. Fast. Cheap. Pick Two"?

What's gone wrong, is what goes wrong at most major corporations -- a focus more on "business" (which itself falls victim to fashion/fad such as image and perception of "fairness", KPIs, "mission statements", and other easy-to-measure-yet-made-up BS) rather than the main purpose : execution of engineering and ABSOLUTE INSISTENCE on quality. Boeing used to have an engineering-driven culture, but that has been destroyed. The CEO has deliberately driven the pendulum away from quality as #1 task to more concern over costs. Why is anyone surprised that they are now getting less quality?

It's not just Boeing, it's the buyers (the airlines). They are customers too. They want Good, Fast AND Cheap. But they can't get it. They're forgetting what the final consumers (the flying public, and the private airlines such as UPS & FedEx that fly packages) want -- a reliable aircraft that doesn't fall out of the sky. That decision to buy a crappier aircraft to save a few bucks is being made. By whom? Board of Directors? C-class decision makers whose bonuses are based on saving millions of dollars. Accountants? Middle management?

But the "savings" are a temporary sugar-high. Once the reputation is damaged, it will costs many times any savings to restore confidence, if ever.

No-one ever falls out of the sky in a shoddily designed/built aircraft coming apart mid-air and thinks "well at least they saved a few bucks on manufacturing." I just hope enough of the old-guard engineers are still around to try to restore the old culture and save this company from itself.

[dotnet00]

This "good, fast, cheap, pick two" thing is peddled often, but it skips over the fact that costs also come down over time as technology improves. As an aerospace example, SpaceX's F9 is better, faster and cheaper than the competition.

The issue at Boeing is allowing things to swing deep into maximizing profit margins rather than forward-looking investment in technology improvements which reduce costs while maintaining or improving quality.

[yifanl]

Waiting for technology to catch up to what you want is exactly what it means to be the sacrificing "fast".

[chmod600]

How many times must we re-learn "Good. Fast. Cheap. Pick Two"?

The two of those that are easy to measure will always get chosen. It's not that people don't want "good", it just takes a lot of effort to figure out if you are getting something good or not.

Reputation is one way, but that can be, and often is, spent for short-term gain.

[ponector]

But you cannot apply any of Good, Fast, Cheap to the Boeing products.

And they know airlines are going to buy their planes anyway. What are the alternatives? To wait 10 years to get Airbus? And hire second set of technicians and maintenance bases for Airbus while have the same for existing Boeing fleet?

[jackhack]

Following the "John Deere" style brand lock-in strategy: "Sure the Kubota is half the price and I can fix it myself, but all of my implements work with my Deere." And unless I switch over the tractor, the combine, the baler. I'll have to maintain both brands. I guess I'll just stick with JD one more season..."

[kwertyoowiyop]

You CAN get all three, but it depends on your definition of “good.”