Overview
This case study is based on an immense aircraft manufacturing firm, popularly referred to as Boeing, which was encountering a big risk concerning the production of the emerging Boeing-777. The project was desired to be costly. The firm was adopting a project which would see it part with roughly 6.2 billion dollars and for in fact manufacturing the product it required a minimum of 9,500 employees.
At the time the company was contemplating on beginning the manufacturing of the Boeing-777 it was economically stable and there was in addition strong tendencies toward why it needs to carry out such an uncertain project (Valasquez 43).
The brands the company had during that time were not capable of meeting the desires of its clients, for instance the 767 which did not have benefits over other airplanes provided. The production method and practice had to be changed. The answer for this problem revolved around developing the Boeing-777 and introducing products that would change the airplane sector.
Problem Identification
When focusing on the case study information, it can vividly be seen that the key challenge for Boeing was that other competing aircraft firms had strategies to produce airplanes to the desires of their clients in an extremely flexible manner. These new strategies were in addition positioning Boeing behind as far as technological advantages are concerned.
The CEO, Philip Condit desired to know if the Boeing-767 project would be successful; therefore JIM Guyete, the United Airline President told him to relinquish the Boeing-767 and in its place establish a brand new marketable airplane. In accomplishing this goal Philip introduced many improvements, both technological in addition to administrative, in the airplane modeling, processing and assembly. The CEO focused on revitalizing Boeing’s obsolete engineering manufacturing systems in addition to updating production strategy (Lewis 37).
Analysis
Cost and Schedule
This fresh concept presented a new chance for Boeing for designing and configuring new aircrafts that would be proficient for the clients and for the strategies utilized by the company. The approach comprised the new cockpit designs that were the same as the Boeing-747 and thus pilots could fly on the two airplanes without additional retraining cost.
The Boeing-777 project was comprising several diverse countries such as Japan, Korea and Australia, therefore the aircraft could gain from well known suppliers as far as technical knowledge is concerned as well as in respect to value for the manufactured components of the airplane.
One of the best stakeholders during the project was the Japanese government which contributed approximately 21% of the overall cost of the new aircraft; therefore the government in addition gave out over 200 of its system engineers to United States so as to aid in the actual development of the jet (“777 Revolutionizes Boeing” 34).
Technical Performance
Forming teams was another characteristic of the Boeing-777 project and the production manager had to design systems that facilitated collecting as much information from the clients, the engineering team, the designing group, and production employees. There were roughly 20 incorporated position groups, organized at a big section of the airplane and the technical support team was organized based on small and large parts. In the two instances, the assembly team was cross functional. Overall the Boeing 777 program was a success.
To ensure that the product was meeting the technical performance criteria, the company ensured that each project had a representative from five basic professions (system engineering, production, resources, finance and quality assurance) and met two times in every seven days for 120 minutes. The implementation teams had an increased level of democracy from the managerial team that can be evident in the ultimate product effective blend of necessities that fulfilled the desires of each party involved (Valasquez 44).
Project Risk
As the Boeing Company tried to adopt new concepts, higher funding was needed in addition to widespread policy. This increased the risk of Boeing going bankrupt. The project had in addition a large effect on the employees since they had to work jointly as a team under increased pressure, which was a rare strategy in the organization. However, Boeing utilized innovation which was acceptable to clients as a way of mitigating project risks (Ryan et al. 4).
Systems Engineering
System engineering played a vital role in thinking of a set of innovations which was favorable to the customers and not simply adopted since the company thought it would improve its new aircraft. There was in addition a change in the designing techniques, since there were upgrades to 3D from 2D. In this case the company had to train all its system engineers utilizing computer software to design the airplane (Lewis 38).
Lessons Learned
Although the company made an excellent decision in starting up the Boeing-777 project that opened the chance for redesigning and upgrading the old production systems, generally this would have been the sole option likely so as to regain its position in the airline industry. It is clear from the case that the decision criteria was based on the concept of spreading the menace of a single firm going bankrupt and in addition of attracting a market segment that was not in the major segment of Boeing (Spencer 28).
Works Cited
Lewis, Lansdaal. “Boeing’s 777 Systems Integration Lab.” IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine 3.3 (2000): 37-55. Print.
Spencer, Martersteck. “Introduction to the 5ESS Switching System.” AT&T Technical Journal, 64.6 (2001): 22-33. Print.
Ryan, Perkins, Christopher Aldridge, Travis Johnson, Suzanne Holt. “Case study: Boeing 777.” Technical Journal 2.2 (2010): 1-5. Print.
Valasquez, Marquez. “American Airlines Arrival Slot Allocation System (ASAS).” Interfaces 21.1 (199): 42-61. Print.
“777 Revolutionizes Boeing Aircraft Development Process.” Aviation Week & Space Technology, 3 (2006): 34. Print.