Boeing 787 Case

Introduction

Since the U.S. government deregulated air travel in 1977,more airlines have entered the market causing fierceprice competition. As airfares continued to decline, thetotal number of U.S. passengers per year has risen fromapproximately 240 million to 640 million from 1977 to1999. At the same time, U.S. commercial aircraftmanufacturers have faced major competition fromEuropean companies. After losing market share toAirbus (owned by EADS) in the late 1990s, Boeing wasunder pressure to decide between two basiccompetitive strategies: reduce the costs (and the sellingprices) of existing types of aircraft or develop a newaircraft to raise revenues through value creation.

In 2003, Boeing decided to focus on creating additionalvalue for its customers (airlines) and their passengersby developing an innovative aircraft: the 787 Dreamliner.(Throughout this paper, we shall use the term “787Dreamliner,” “787,” and “Dreamliner” interchangeably.)First, Boeing's value-creation strategy for thepassengers was to improve their travel experiencethrough redesigning the aircraft and offering significantimprovements in comfort. For instance, relative toother aircrafts, over 50% of the primary structure of the787 aircraft (including the fuselage and wing) would bemade of composite materials (Hawk, 2005). Ascompared to the traditional material (aluminum) used inairplane manufacturing, the composite material allowsfor increased humidity and pressure to be maintained in

the passenger cabin, offering substantial improvementto the flying experience. Also, the lightweight compositematerials enable the Dreamliner to take long-haul flights.Consequently, the Dreamliner allows airlines to offerdirect/nonstop flights between any pair of cities withoutlayovers, which is preferred by most internationaltravelers (Hucko, 2007). Table 1 and Figure 1 (p. 75)compare the 787 aircraft with other popular aircrafts.

Second, Boeing's value-creation strategy for its keyimmediate customers (the airlines) and its endcustomers (the passengers) was to improve flightoperational efficiency by providing big-jet ranges tomidsize airplanes while flying at approximately the samespeed (Mach 0.85).3 This efficiency would allow airlinesto offer economical nonstop flights to and from moreand smaller cities. In addition, with a capacity between210 and 330 passengers and a range of up to 8,500nautical miles, the 787 Dreamliner is designed to use20% less fuel for comparable missions than today'ssimilarly sized airplanes. The cost-per-seat mile isexpected to be 10% lower than for any other aircraft.Also, unlike the traditional aluminum fuselages that tendto rust and fatigue, the 787's fuselages are based oncomposite materials, which reduce airlines'maintenance and replacement costs (Murray, 2007).Table 2 provides a summary of the Dreamliner's benefitsfor both the airlines and their passengers.

Due to the unique value that the 787 provides to theairlines and their passengers, the number of ordersexceeded expectations. The Dreamliner is the fastest-

To stimulate revenue growth and market response, Boeing decided to develop the787 Dreamliner. The 787 Dreamliner is not only a revolutionary aircraft, but it alsoutilizes an unconventional supply chain intended to drastically reduce developmentcost and time. However, despite significant management efforts and capitalinvestment, Boeing is currently facing a series of delays in its schedule for the maidenflight and plane delivery to customers. This paper analyzes Boeing's rationale for the787's unconventional supply chain, describes Boeing's challenges for managing thissupply chain, and highlights some key lessons for other manufacturers to considerwhen designing their supply chains for new product development.

Managing New ProductDevelopment and Supply Chain Risks: The Boeing 787 Case

74Supply Chain Forum An International Journal Vol. 10 - N°2 - 2009 www.supplychain-forum.com

Christopher S. Tang and Joshua D. Zimmerman1

UCLA Anderson [email protected]

[email protected]

Commented byJames I. Nelson M.S.

MBCP, CORPBusiness Continuity Services

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank William Schmidt of the Harvard Business School and one anonymous

reviewer for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper.

1. This research is supported by the UCLA Edward W. Carter Endowment Fund.

selling plane in aviation history with carriers attractedto its new largely composite design and innovative next-generation jet engines that will allow the wide-bodiedplane to fly further on less fuel. The Dreamliner programhas been considered a model endeavor combining noveltechnology and production strategies. As of November16, 2008, Boeing (Too early to talk about delay here.)www.boeing.com) received orders from more than 50airlines for a total of 895 Dreamliners. Theoverwhelming response from the airline industry aboutBoeing's 787 has forced Airbus to quickly redesign itscompetitive wide-bodied jet, the A350, to make it evenwider, which was later re-released as the A350XWB as an“extra wide body” (Wallace, 2006). Boeing is currentlythe second-largest global aircraft manufacturer (behindAirbus) in terms of revenue and deliveries (thoughhaving received more orders than Airbus), the second-

largest aerospace and defense contractor in the world(behind Lockheed Martin), and the single-largestexporter in the United States. Sales in 2007 amounted to$66.4 billion with a net income of $4.1 billion.

Besides sales, the stock market responded favorablywhen Boeing launched its “game-changing” 787Dreamliner program in 2003. As shown in Figure 2,between 2003 and 2007, Boeing's stock price increasedfrom around $30 a share to slightly over $100 a share.However, Boeing announced a series of delays beginningin late 2007 and the market has reacted negatively(Figure 2). The negative market response is somewhatexpected as publicity of Boeing's supply chain problemshave become increasingly evident. As shown in Figure 2,Airbus shared a similar fate after announcing a series ofdelays for the delivery of its A380 in early 2006 (Ramanet al., 2008). Despite significant capital investment andmanagement effort, Boeing is currently facing continualdelays (for more than two years) in its schedule for themaiden flight and plane delivery to customers as of thiswriting (Sanders, 2009c). After numerous failedattempts to get its 787's composite rear fuselagesupplier back on track, Boeing finally decided to acquireVought's South Carolina facility at a cost of $1 billion onJuly 8, 2009 (Sanders, 2009a). This occurrencemotivated us to examine the underlying causes ofBoeing's challenges in managing its 787's deliveryschedule.

In this case study, we shall examine Boeing's rationalefor the 787's unconventional supply chain. The nextsection presents our analysis of the underlying risksassociated with its supply chain. Then we describeBoeing's risk mitigation strategies to expedite itsdevelopment and production processes. We concludewith some key lessons for other manufacturers toconsider when designing their supply chains for newproduct development.


Managing New Product Development and Supply Chain Risks: The Boeing 787 Case

Table 1Comparison of select Boeing and Airbus aircraft

Figure 1Dreamliner and A380 size comparison

2. Measured in terms of typical seat configuration. For example, the total number of seats can be higher if more space is allocated to the economy-classcabin and less space to the first and business class cabins. 3. Other immediate customers include air freight logistics service providers such as Federal Express or DHL and aircraft operators such as Global Air.



Figure 2Historical stock prices of Boeing and Airbus compared to the S&P500

Table 2Dreamliner features with benefits for airlines and passengers

The 787 Dreamliner's unconventional supply chain

To reduce the 787's development time from six to fouryears and development cost from $10 to $6 billion,Boeing decided to develop and produce the Dreamlinerby using an unconventional supply chain new to theaircraft manufacturing industry. The 787's supply chainwas envisioned to keep manufacturing and assemblycosts low, while spreading the financial risks ofdevelopment to Boeing's suppliers. Unlike the 737'ssupply chain, which requires Boeing to play thetraditional role of a key manufacturer who assemblesdifferent parts and subsystems produced by thousandsof suppliers (Figure 3), the 787's supply chain is basedon a tiered structure that would allow Boeing to fosterpartnerships with approximately 50 tier-1 strategicpartners. These strategic partners serve as“integrators” who assemble different parts andsubsystems produced by tier-2 suppliers (Figure 4). The787 supply chain depicted in Figure 4 resemblesToyota's supply chain, which has enabled Toyota todevelop new cars with shorter development cycle times



Figure 3A traditional supply chain for airplanemanufacturing

Figure 4Redesigned supply chain for the Dreamliner program

Table 3Comparison of Boeing's strategy for its 737 and 787 programs

and lower development costs (Tang, 1999). Table 3highlights the key differences between the 737's supplychain and the unconventional 787 supply chain. Forinstance, under the 787's supply chain structure, thesetier-1 strategic partners are responsible for deliveringcomplete sections of the aircraft to Boeing, which wouldallow Boeing to assemble these complete sectionswithin three days at its plant in Everett, Washington(Figure 5). We now explain the relationale behind the787’s supply chain as highlighted is table 3.

Outsource more

By outsourcing 70% of the development and productionactivities under the 787 program, Boeing can shortenthe development time by leveraging suppliers' ability todevelop different parts at the same time. Also, Boeingmay be able to reduce the development cost of the 787by exploiting suppliers' expertise. As Boeingoutsourced more, communication and coordinationbetween Boeing and its suppliers became critical formanaging the progress of the 787 development program.To facilitate the coordination and collaboration amongsuppliers and Boeing, Boeing implemented a web-basedtool called Exostar that is intended to gain supply chainvisibility, improve control and integration of criticalbusiness processes, and reduce development time andcost Manufacturing Business Technology, 2007).

Reduce direct supply base, delegate more, and focus more

To reduce development time and cost for theDreamliner, Boeing fostered strategic partnerships withapproximately 50 tier-1 suppliers who will design andbuild entire sections of the plane and ship them toBoeing. By reducing its direct supply base, Boeing couldfocus more of its attention and resources on workingwith tier-1 suppliers (pre-integration stages) rather thanwith raw material procurement and early component

subassembly. However, unless the supplier relationshipis managed correctly, reducing the supply base canincrease supply risks because of the reduced bargainingpower of the manufacturer (Tang, 1999). The rationalebehind this shift is to empower its strategic suppliers todevelop and produce different sections in parallel so asto reduce the development time. Also, by shifting moreassembly operations to its strategic partners located indifferent countries, there is a potential savings indevelopment cost as well (Figure 6).

Reduce financial risks

Under the 787 program, Boeing instituted a new risk-sharing contract under which no strategic suppliers willreceive payment for the development cost until Boeingdelivers its first 787 to its customers (slated to be ANAairlines). This contract payment term was intended toprovide incentives for strategic partners to collaborateand coordinate their development efforts. Although thiscontract imposes certain financial risks for Boeing'sstrategic suppliers if delivery deadlines are missed, theyare incentivized by being allowed to own theirintellectual property, which can then be licensed toother companies in the future. Another incentive for thestrategic partners to accept this payment term is that itallows them to increase their revenues (and potentialprofits) by taking up the development and production ofthe entire section of the plane instead of a small part ofthe plane.

Increase production capacity without incurringadditional costs

Decentralizing the manufacturing process would allowBoeing to outsource noncritical processes. Theintention is to reduce the capital investment for the 787development program. Also, under the 787 supplychain, Boeing needs only three days to assemblecomplete sections of the Dreamliner at its plant. Relative



Figure 5Dreamliner subassembly plan (Source:,www.Boeing.com)

to the 737 supply chain, this drastic reduction in cycletime would in turn increase Boeing's productioncapacity without incurring additional investments.

The Dreamliner's supply chain risks

Although the 787 supply chain (Figure 4) has greatpotential for reducing development time and cost, thereare various underlying supply chain risks. As describedin Sodhi and Tang (2009 a), there are many types ofsupply chain risks ranging from technology to processrisks, from demand to supply risks, and from IT systemto labor risks. In this section, we shall present some ofthe risks and actual events that caused major delays inthe Dreamliner's development program (Table 4).

The 787 Dreamliner involves the use of variousunproven technologies. Boeing encountered thefollowing technical problems that led to a series ofdelays.

• Composite Fuselage Safety Issues: The Dreamliner contains 50% composite material (carbon fiber-reinforced plastic), 15% aluminum, and 12% titanium.The composite material has never been used on thisscale and many fear that creating an airplane with thismixture of materials is not feasible. Also, lightningstrikes are a safety concern for wings made out of thiscomposite material because a lightning bolt wouldpotentially travel through the wing-skin fasteners(Wallace, 2006).

• Engine Interchangeability Issues: One of the key benefits of the 787's modular design concept was to

allow airlines to use two different types of engines(Rolls-Royce and GE) interchangeably. Due to recenttechnical difficulties and part incongruity, it wouldtake 15 days to change engines from one model to theother instead of the intended 24 hours (Leeham Co.,2005).

• Computer Network Security Issues: The current configuration of electronics on the Dreamliner putspassenger electronic entertainment on the samecomputer network as the flight control system. Thisraises a security concern for terrorist attacks (Zetter2008).

Supply Risks

Boeing is relying on its tier-1 global strategic partners todevelop and build entire sections of the Dreamliner thatare based on unproven technology. Any break in thesupply chain can cause significant delays of the overallproduction. In early September 2007, Boeing announceda delay in the planned first flight of the Dreamliner citingongoing challenges including parts shortages andremaining software and systems integration activities.Even using Exostar, a web-based planning system, tocoordinate the supplier development activities,coordination is only possible when accurate and timelyinformation is provided by different suppliers]Forexample, one of the tier-1 suppliers, Vought, hiredAdvanced Integration Technology (AIT) as a tier-2supplier to serve as a system integrator withoutinforming Boeing. AIT is supposed to coordinate with



Table 4Boeing's 787 supply chain risks and consequences

other tier-2 and tier-3 suppliers for Vought (Tang, 2007).Additionally, due to cultural differences, some tier-2 ortier-3 suppliers do not often enter accurate and timelyinformation into the Exostar system. As a result,varioustier-1 suppliers and Boeing were not aware of the delayproblems in a timely fashion, which makes it difficult forBoeing to respond to these problems quickly.

Process Risks

The underlying design of the 787 supply chain is likely tocause major delays because its efficiency depends onthe synchronized just-in-time deliveries of all majorsections from Boeing's tier-1 strategic partners. If thedelivery of a section is delayed, the delivery schedule ofthe whole aircraft is delayed. Unless Boeing keeps somesafety stocks of different complete sections, it is likelythat Boeing will face late delivery. Also, under the risk-sharing contract, none of the strategic partners will getpaid until the first completed plane is certified for flight.As strategic partners recognize the potential of beingpenalized unfairly if they complete their tasks beforeother suppliers, the risk-sharing contract payment mayactually entice these strategic partners to work slower,which undermines the original intent of the risk-sharingcontract (Kwon et al., 2009).

Management Risks

As Boeing used an unconventional supply chainstructure to develop and build its Dreamliner, it isessential for Boeing to assemble a leadership team thatincludes some members who have a proven supplychain management record with expertise to prevent andanticipate certain risks as well as to developcontingency plans to mitigate the impact of differenttypes of risks. However, Boeing's original leadershipteam for the 787 program did not include members with

expertise on supply chain risk management. Without therequisite skills to manage an unconventional supplychain, Boeing was undertaking a huge managerial risk inuncharted waters.

Labor Risks

As Boeing increased its outsourcing effort, Boeingworkers became concerned about their job security.Their concerns resulted in a strike by more than 25,000Boeing employees starting in September 2008. Theeffects of the worker strike were also felt by Boeing'sstrategic partners. For example, anticipating that thestrike at Boeing would trigger order cancellations anddelivery delay of certain Boeing aircrafts, SpiritAerosystems, a key supplier of Boeing, reduced its workweek for employees who develop and manufacturevarious Boeing aircrafts. This reduced work schedulecould potentially delay the delivery schedule of certainfuselage parts for the 787 (Rigby & Hepher, 2008).

Demand Risks

As Boeing announced a series of delays, somecustomers lost their confidence in Boeing's aircraftdevelopment capability. In addition, there is a growingconcern about the fact that the first 787s are overweightby about 8%, or 2.2 metric tons, which can lead to a 15%reduction in range (Norris, 2009). In response toBoeing's production and delivery delays and the doubtabout 787's long range capability, some customers havebegun canceling orders for the Dreamliner or migratingtowards leasing contracts instead of purchasing theairplane outright. As of July 2009, the orders for theDreamliner have been reduced from 895 (reported inNovember 2008) to 850 (reported in July 2009) (seeSanders, 2009b, for details).



Table 5Boeing's reactive risk mitigation strategies

Boeing's reactive risk mitigation strategy

To manage various disruptions as presented earlier, wenow present Boeing's reactive response for reducing thenegative impact of the current problems and foravoiding further complications resulting in additionaldelays (Table 5).

To improve the safety of its composite fuselage, Boeingis redesigning its fuselage by using additional materialto strengthen the wing structure; however, thisadditional material will increase the aircraft's overallweight. Boeing management has continued to assure itscustomers that it will work diligently to reduce theweight of the final version of the plane. Boeing isredesigning its installation process with the hope ofreducing its changeover time from one engine model tothe other. Finally, to ensure that the computer networkis secure, a proper design is being required that allowsfor the separation of the navigation computer systemsfrom the passenger electronic entertainment system.

Mitigating Supply Risks

After realizing that some tier-1 strategic partners did nothave the know-how to develop different sections of theaircraft or experience in managing their tier-2 suppliersto develop the requisite components for the sections,Boeing recognized the need to regain control of thedevelopment process of the 787. For instance, knowingthat Vought Aircraft Industries was the weakest link inthe Boeing's 787 supply chain, Boeing acquired one unitof Vought in 2008 and then another unit in 2009 (Ray,2008; Sanders, 2009a). These two acquisitions provideBoeing direct control of these two units of Vought andtheir tier-2 suppliers for the fuselage development.Further, as a result of continued production delays,some of Boeing's suppliers were in jeopardy of facingmassive profit losses, which put completion of the entireDreamliner program at risk. For example, in response tothreats of work stoppage, Boeing paid its tier-1 strategicpartner Spirit Aerosystems approximately $125 millionin 2008 to ensure that this partner continued its vitaloperations, Ray 2008).

Mitigating Process Risks

As a response to suppliers' inability to meet productiondeadlines, Boeing decided that it must send keypersonnel to sites across the globe to fill suppliers'management vacuum and address production issues inperson. This proved to be an expensive endeavor aspersonnel was pulled from responsibilities on-site atBoeing to address supply and manufacturing issues atthe sites of their outsourced partners. The strategy ofrelying on suppliers for subassembly proved to be toorisky for Boeing in certain circumstances and resulted inBoeing having to perform the work themselves. Forinstance, Boeing sent hundreds of its engineers to thesites of various tier-1, tier-2, or tier-3 suppliersworldwide to solve various technical problems thatappeared to be the root cause of the delay in the 787'sdevelopment. Ultimately, Boeing had to redesign theentire aircraft subassembly process (Gunsalus, 2007).

While this hands-on approach would certainly help theprocess, it is very costly and time consuming, whichdefeats the underlying intents of the 787's redesignedsupply chain as described earlier.

Mitigating Management Risks

To restore customers' confidence about Boeing's aircraftdevelopment capability and to reduce any furtherdelays, Boeing recognized the need to bring in someonewith a proven record of supply chain managementexpertise. In response, the original 787 programdirector, Mike Bair (with proven marketing expertise),was replaced by Patrick Shanahan, who had provenexpertise in supply chain management. Shanahan isnow responsible for coordination of all activities forBoeing's major plane families, which includes theDreamliner. Moreover, Boeing has changed it topleadership by replacing its interim CEO, James Bell, withJim McNerney in 2005.

Mitigating Labor Risks

To bring about an end to the strike after two months ofshutdown, Boeing made concessions that would giveworkers a 15% wage boost over four years. On the keyissue of job security, which had been the majorimpediment to reaching an agreement, Boeing agreed tolimit the amount of work that outside vendors couldperform. Therefore, Boeing's concept of outsourcing asignificant amount of work to global partners could beendangered and production costs could eventually rise.In response to the wage increases and limits inoutsourcing promised by Boeing, the machinists unionconceded to withdraw charges filed with theDepartment of Labor regarding allegations of unfairbargaining practices at Boeing (Gates, 2008).

Mitigating Demand (Customer) Risks

As customers had begun to cancel their 787 orders andas the company's capability of developing the 787 wasput into question, Boeing developed the followingmitigation strategies. First, as a way to compensate itscustomers' potential loss due to the late deliveries oftheir orders, Boeing is supplying replacement aircrafts(new 737 or 747) to various concerned airlines such asVirgin Atlantic (Lunsford October 11, 2007 ; Crown,2008). Second, to restore Boeing's public image, Boeinghas improved its communication by sharing its progressupdates on its website. In addition, Boeing isconducting a publicity campaign to promote thesuperior technology of the 787 and the overall value thatthe airplane will offer to airlines and passengers (Crown,2008).

Boeing's potential proactive risk mitigationstrategies

As Boeing makes its best effort to restore confidence inits capability of developing innovative aircrafts such asthe Dreamliner, there are certain risk mitigationstrategies that Boeing could have embarked on at theoutset of the program to better manage potential risksproactively (Table 6).



Improve Supply Chain Visibility

As described earlier, Boeing's supply risk was caused bythe lack of supply chain visibility. Without accurate andtimely information about the supply chain structure andthe development progress at each supplier's site, thevalue of Exostar has been compromised significantly. Toimprove information accuracy, Boeing should haverequired that all strategic partners and suppliersprovide all information imbedded in the supply chainrelationships instead of relying on alerts generated fromthe program only after they were directly affected. Also,Boeing should provide incentives for all suppliers to useExostar to communicate accurate information in atimely manner.

Improve Strategic Supplier Section Process andRelationships

Spending more effort on evaluating each supplier'stechnical capability and supply chain managementexpertise for developing and manufacturing a particularsection of the Dreamliner would have enabled Boeing toselect more capable tier-1 strategic suppliers, whichcould avoid or reduce potential delays caused byinexperienced tier-1 suppliers. Also, Boeing shouldrequire that they participate in the tier-1 partner'svetting process of tier-2 (or tier-3) suppliers. Theadditional effort of properly vetting key suppliers wouldcertainly enhance communication and coordination andreduce the risks of potential delays, which would in turnreduce the development time and cost (Lunsford, 2007).

Modify the Risk-Sharing Contract

Although the delayed payment term associated with therisk-sharing contract was intended to reduce Boeing'sfinancial risk, it did not provide proper incentives fortier-1 suppliers to complete their tasks early. If somestrategic partners are incapable of developing theirsections according to the plan schedule, the entiredevelopment schedule is pushed back. As a result of

these delays, Boeing incurred millions of dollars inpenalties that it had to pay out to its customers (West,2007). To properly align the incentives among allstrategic partners, Boeing should have structured thecontracts with reward (penalty) for on-time (late)delivery (Kwon et al., 2009).

Proactive Management Team

Boeing should have chosen the right people for the jobat the outset of the program, allowing them to anticipateand avoid the risks associated with its novel supplychain structure. Also, identifying the sources ofpotential problems and having the right person (orteam) in place would mitigate many of the risks andallow Boeing to respond more quickly and effectivelywhen problems occurred. For example, Boeing couldhave either avoided or anticipated various types ofsupply chain risks as described in Section 3 had theyappointed persons with proven supply chainmanagement expertise to serve on the originalleadership team. By having a leadership team with allrequisite skills, Boeing would have had the requisiteexpertise and authority to respond to the delayproblems more effectively.

Proactive Labor Relationship Management

Dissatisfaction among Boeing's machinists was causedby Boeing's strategy to increase its outsourcedoperations to external suppliers. Had the union'sgeneral disapproval of Boeing's outsourcing strategybeen taken into account, Boeing may not have decidedto outsource 70% of its tasks. Even if this outsourcingstrategy was justified financially, Boeing could havemanaged its labor relationship proactively by discussingthe strategy, by offering job assurances, and byobtaining buy-in from unions. This proactive laborrelationship management would have created a moremutually beneficial partnership, which could haveavoided the labor strikes.



Table 6Alternative strategies for mitigating program risks

Proactive Customer Relationship Management

Recognizing the risks associated with innovativeproduct development, proactive customer relationshipmanagement is critical to help customers set properexpectations when placing their orders. Bettercommunication with customers throughout thedevelopment process can enable a company to managecustomers' perceptions throughout the entire productdevelopment process. Setting proper expectationsabout the delivery schedules of its 787 Dreamliner mayhave encouraged the airlines to manage their aircraftreplacement schedule differently, say order more 737sand 747s and fewer 787s. Without setting an aggressivedelivery schedule to its customers, it was plausible forBoeing to reduce the penalty caused by the delayeddelivery schedule. Through continuous engagementand open communication about the challenges andBoeing's contingency plans, it would have beenplausible for Boeing to manage its customers'perception and its reputation better.

Afterthoughts

By examining the inherent risks associated withBoeing's supply chain and by analyzing Boeing'sreactive mitigation strategies presented earlier, we havedeveloped the following insights that othermanufacturers may consider when managing theirsupply chains for efficient new product development.

Assembling a Leadership Team with RequisiteExpertise

On the surface, it appears that Boeing's fundamentalproblem was caused by its attempts to simultaneouslytake on too many drastic changes. These changesinclude unproven technology, unconventional supplychains, unproven supplier's capability to take on newroles and responsibilities, and unproven IT coordinationsystems. However, one plausible reason for Boeing totake on so many drastic changes may be because the787 leadership team underestimated the risksassociated with all these changes. Had Boeingconstructed a multi-disciplinary team with expertise toidentify and evaluate various supply chain risks, it mighthave been possible for Boeing to anticipate and avoidpotential risks, and to develop proactive mitigationstrategies and contingency plans to reduce the impactof various supply chain disruptions.

Obtaining Internal Support Proactively

Partnerships between management and labor areessential for smooth operations for companies toimplement any new initiatives including new productdevelopment programs. Although their interests areoften misaligned, better communication of businessstrategies with union workers is a proactive steptowards avoiding costly worker strikes. Also, aligningthe incentives for both parties proactively is more likelyto reduce potential internal disruptions down the road.

Improving Supply Chain Visibility to FacilitateCoordination and Collaboration

Besides the need to perform due diligence in keysupplier selection to ensure that the selected supplierhas the requisite capability and the commitment forsuccess, a company should consider cultivatingstronger commitment in exchange for accurateinformation in a timely manner. Overly relying on ITcommunication is highly risky when managing a newproject. To mitigate the risks caused by partners furtherupstream or downstream, companies should strive togain complete visibility of the entire supply chain.Having clear supply chain visibility would enhance thecapability for a company to take corrective action morequickly, which is more likely to reduce the negativeimpact of a disruption along the supply chain. See Sodhiand Tang (2009b) for a discussion of the importance oftimely response to mitigate the negative effects ofsupply chain disruptions.

Proactive Management of Customer Expectation andPerception

Due to the inherent risks associated with new productdevelopment, it is critical for a company to help itscustomers set proper expectations proactively,especially regarding the potential delay caused byvarious types of risks as highlighted in Table 3. Settingproper expectations at the outset would reducepotential customer dissatisfaction down the road.During the development phase, it is advisable for thecompany to maintain open and honest communicationwith its customers regarding the actual progress,technical challenges, and corrective measures. Suchefforts would possibly gain customer trust, which wouldimprove their loyalty in the long run.

Conclusion

Boeing's Dreamliner program involves dramatic shifts insupply chain strategy from traditional methods used inthe aerospace industry. In addition, Boeing boastedabout its novel manufacturing techniques and itstechnological marvels. Such dramatic shifts fromconvention involve significant potential forencountering risks throughout the process. Boeing'songoing issues with meeting delivery deadlines are adirect result of its decision to make drastic changes inthe design, the development process, and the supplychain associated with the Dreamliner programsimultaneously without having the proper managementteam in place. Further, this team did not proactivelyassess the risks that were later realized and did notdevelop coherent strategies for effectively mitigatingthem. Although it may be impossible to identify allpotential risks and create contingency plans for alleventualities before a project begins, Boeing could havedone many things differently. It is instructive formanagers in any industry to view the issues that Boeingfaced and analyze how these issues were handled sothat they can learn from mistakes that were made beforeengaging in similar supply chain restructuring.



References

Boeing website www.boeing.com.

Crown, J. (2008, April 4). Will Boeing pay for delays? SpiegelOnline International. Retrieved May 2009 fromhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,545365,00.html.

Dyer, J., & Ouchi, W. (1993). Japanese style businesspartnerships: Giving companies a competitive edge. SloanManagement Review, 35(1), 51-63.

Gates, D. (2008, Nov. 2). Boeing strike ends: Machinists back onthe job Sunday. Seattle Times. Retrieved April 2009 fromhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008340022_webmachinists02m.html.

Gunsalus, J. (2007, Dec 11). Boeing sticks to revised 787Dreamliner schedule. Bloomberg Press. Retrieved April 2009from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aqgUCtUslurM&refer=us.

Hawk, J. (2005, May).The Boeing 787-Dreamliner: More than anairplane. Retrieved April 2009 from http://www.aiaa.org/events/aners/Presentations/ANERS-Hawk.pdf.

Hucko, C. (2007, April 28). Airbus A380 vs. Boeing 787: Pollreveals that passengers prefer a smaller plane. Suite101.Retrieved May 2009 from http://airplanes.suite101.com/article.cfm/airbus_a380_vs_boeing_787.

Kwon, D., Lippman, S. A., McCardle, K., & Tang, C. S. (2009).Time-based contracts with delayed payments. Working paper.Los Angeles: UCLA Anderson School.

Leeham Co. (2005, July 18). 787 is not meeting 24-hour enginechange promo, lessor says. Leeham Co. LLC. Retrieved May2009 from http://www.leeham.net/filelib/SCOTTSCOLUMN071805.pdf.

Lunsford, J. (2007, Oct 11). Boeing, in embarrassing setback,says 787 Dreamliner will be delayed. The Wall Street Journal,pp. A1, A16.

Lunsford, J. (2007, Oct 17). Boeing replaces head of 787Dreamliner program. The Wall Street Journal.

Manufacturing Business Technology, (2007, March 1). “Boeing787 program flying smoothly with Exostar collaborationengine,” Manufacturing Business Technology.h t t p : / / w w w . m b t m a g . c o m / a r t i c l e / 1 9 2 1 9 8 -Boeing_787_program_flying_smoothly_with_Exostar_collaboration_engine.php

Murray, C. (2007, June 4). Boeing 787 Dreamliner rolls outsmoother ride with gust suppression. Design News. RetrievedApril 2009 from http://www.designnews.com/article/439-Boeing_787_Dreamliner_Rolls_Out_Smoother_Ride_with_Gust_Suppression.php.

Norris, G. (2009, May 6). 787s move along, weight problemspersist. Aviation Daily. RetrievedMay 2009 fromhttp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aviationdaily&id=news/787NEW05059.xml.

Raman, A., Schmidt, C., & Gaul, V. (2008). Airbus A380-Turbulence ahead Harvard Business School Case, N9-609-041.

Ray, S. (2008, March 28). Boeing buys Vought Venture to stemdelays on 787. Bloomberg Press. Retrieved April 2009 fromhttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aw4dIEC3nhGs&refer=news.

Rigby, B., & Hepher, T. (2008, Sept.). Boeing strike impact to befelt globally. Reuters. Retrieved July 22, 2009, fromhttp://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSN0529451820080908.

Sanders, P. (2009a, July 8). Boeing sets deal to buy a Dreamlinerplant. Wall Street Journal.

Sanders, P. (2009b, July 2). Boeing tightens its grip onDreamliner production. Wall Street Journal, p. B1.

Sanders, P. (2009c, July 23). Boeing yet to clear Dreamliner'stakeoff. Wall Street Journal, p. B3.

Sodhi, M., & Tang, C. S. (2009a). Managing supply chaindisruption via time-based risk management. In T. Wu & J.Blackhurst (eds.), Managing supply chain risk and vulnerability:Tools and methods for supply chain decision makers. New York:Springer.

Sodhi, M., & Tang, C. S. (2009b). Supply chain risk management.]]In J. J. Cochran, L. A. Cox, P. Keskinocak, J. P. Kharoufeh, & J.C. Smith (eds.), Encyclopedia of operations research andmanagement science. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons.

Tang, C. S. (1999). The supplier relationship map, InternationalJournal of Logistics, 2(1), 39-56.

Tang, C. S. (2007). Boeing's 787 supply chain: A dream or anightmare? Unpublished paper. Los Angeles: UCLA AndersonSchool.

Wallace, J. (2006, July 18). Airbus unveils widebody, says A350XWB will top 787 and 777. SeattleP-I. Retrieved April 2009 fromhttp://www.seattlepi.com/business/277877_airshow18.html.

Wallace, J. (2006, July 12). Aerospace notebook: Lightning aweighty issue for the 787. Seattle P-I. Retrieved April 2009 fromhttp://www.seattlepi.com/business/277220_air12.html.

West, K. (2007, Dec. 12). Boeing 787 program not out of woods.MSNBC.

Wikipedia. (2009). List of Boeing 787 orders. Retrieved May2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_787_orders.

Zetter, K. (2008, Jan. 8). FAA: Boeing's new 787 may bevulnerable to hacker attack. Wired. Retrieved May 2009 fromhttp://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/01/dreamliner_security.




About the authors

Dr Christopher S. Tang is Edward W. Carter Professor of Business Administration at the UCLA Anderson School. In addition to his academicappointment at UCLA for over 20 years, he has served many roles at the UCLA Anderson School including Senior Associate Dean, Department Chair, andCenter Director. Between 2000 and 2004, he served as Dean of National University of Singapore business school as well as the Senior Advisor to thePresident at the National University of Singapore. Chris has extensive teaching, research, and consulting experience in the areas of Supply ChainManagement and Retailing. In addition to winning 5 different teaching awards, he has published 3 books, over 80 research articles in various leadinginternational academic journals, and articles in Wall Street Journal and Financial Times. Moreover, he has taught various executive programs, served on15 editorial boards including Management Science, Operations Research, Production and Operations Management, and advised clients throughout UnitedStates, Europe and Asia. Dr. Tang received his B.Sc. (First class honors) from King’s College, University of London, M.A., M.Phil, and PhD from YaleUniversity.

Joshua Zimmerman attained a BS in Biochemistry and Cell Biology from UCSD (University of California, San Diego) in 2000, an MBA from UCLAAnderson School in 2009, and is currently working towards finishing an MS in Cell and Molecular Biology. He has worked as a laboratory technician andmanager in the Neuromedical Department at the UCSD HIV Neurobehavioral Research Center (HNRC) in San Diego where he contributed to researchstudies of how the brain and immune system function, and how they are affected by HIV disease. Prior to achieving his MBA, he was a laboratorymanager in the Bioassay Department at Vaxgen, a South San Francisco biopharmaceutical company, which developed and manufactured HIV andanthrax vaccines. He currently works at Amgen in Thousand Oaks, CA as an operations manager in the Operations Risk Management Department,helping to develop corporate risk management strategies for clinical and commercial operational sites.

James I. Nelson M.S.MBCP, CORP

The analysis and write-up of theBoeing 787 case study byChristopher S. Tang and Joshua D.Zimmerman reflects a consistentand high quality academic analysisof undertakings in the marketplace.

This case study analyzes the errors,omissions, mistakes that havebeen made by an organizationseeking to bring goods andservices to market in an expeditedmanner. This is not a uniquesituation and we can extrapolateand learn from both the businessundertakings of Boeing 787project and the Supply Chain casestudy of how to improve and avoidrepeating many of these errors.

Boeing applied some goodconcepts and ideas in an effort tobring the 787 Dreamliner tomarket. They assessed and appliedstrategies that have worked inother industries in an effort torespond to pressures and dynamicsin the market place. Some ofthese concepts worked well andothers were disappointing.

The concept of using newmaterials in the aircraft andleveraging a Tier 1 suppliersupport system borrowed from the

automobile industry has inherentrisks in concept versus application.The realities of cutting edgedesign and real world applicationresulted in additional resourcecommitment by Boeing.

Expecting Tier 1 suppliers tonaturally align with Boeingexpectations was clearlyunrealistic. Engineering designchallenges and resolutions clearlyrequired additional unplannedresources and escalated costs forthe overall project.

What we have seen is that thistrend practiced by Boeing is notunique. We have seen a trend bymany organizations to manageexpenses in response to theeconomic crisis.

This is not a new phenomenonwhen we consider the largenumber of western companiesthat have chosen to “outsource”key tasks, services and activities toemerging markets and lower costcountries in an effort to remaincompetitive.

We have also seen manycompanies surge forward to enactand manage projects with limitedattention paid to the potentialimpacts that can be reasonablyidentified by solid risk assessmentprocesses.

Many organizations fail to takethe time to establish a solidunderstanding of the potentialdownside impacts associated withthe performance problems ofvendors or contractors in thesupply chain. This is not ascomplex and challenging aspresented. Discussions on thenature of 'win-win' are not alwaysas clear as the controllingorganization views them.

Organizations also fail to considerthe impacts of missing customercommitments, managing brandand reputation issues and alsobeing sensitive to the manystakeholder focus areas andconcerns.

The costs of a failure, setback ordisruption are geometrically morecostly than having a solid riskmanagement and response andrecovery capability in place. Thecontingency planning or “what if”capabilities of an organizationoften can be the differencebetween a successful project orthe costly reactive efforts requiredto salvage a project.

Transferring risk and reward is apractice that is often attemptedbut frequently misunderstood.This cannot be accomplished by aseries of meetings in the boardroom of a major organization.This is not a trend or new concept.

COMMENTS ON THE CASE STUDY

This is a very complex and iterativeprocess requiring attention fromkey managers on both sides tounderstand, negotiate and acceptrisk and reward situations.

It may be necessary to also havetraditional purchaser- supplierrelationships in specific cases inthe supply chain. This may be verygermane to smaller, boutique orspecialty services or productsuppliers. In short- one size doesnot fit all- no matter how muchpressure is applied!

This requires dialogue. Creating anenvironment that breeds successcan only be accomplished bycandid and aggressivecommunication. Be prepared tomanage exceptions wherecultures, size, cash flow andunique services may clash.

The key factor is establishing andembedding a culture oforganizational resilience in alorganizations. This is anorganizational culture where alllevels of the organization haveinput to the success if theorganization's undertakings. Thisis a sense of change that ispromulgated from topmanagement but is accomplishedby the managers and workers inthe firm. Again, this may not applyto all supplier organizations.

The culture of resilience is bothinternal and external. The jobsecurity issues at the forefront ofthe Boeing machinist union isshared by many otherconstituencies.

Lessons learned from the Asiantsunamis and the US 2006 GulfCoast disasters should beconsidered by all organizations.Significant community wide,regional or industry challengesneed to be recognized, assessedand addressed at the outset of theproject and evaluated forpotential risks.

The cost of a project delay, outage,setbacks, mistakes or disastershave significant impacts on theorganization, the employees, theirfamilies, key suppliers andcontractors and the health of thecommunity.

Sure Boeing made some mistakesas analyzed by Christopher S. Tangand Joshua D. Zimmerman. Boeingalso attempted to become moreefficient and competitive. Boeingpushed the envelope andcontinued to be creative andaddress challenges in the industry.They may have just applied abureaucratic approach to the 787Dreamliner project which mayhave undermined the strategicintent of the project structure.

The ideas and intent ion were allcommendable. The challenge isthere was a lack of understandingof the importance of bothunderstanding and managing thecomplexities of the supply chainand the overall inherent risks of amismanaged supply chain.

Organizations need to be moreresilient, nimble and responsive inthis global market. This can onlybe achieved by understandingwhat has worked and what hasbeen lacking. Understanding thestrengths of the key suppliers andtheir imperatives and limitations isa solid first step to resilient,successful organizations.

Jim Nelson is the President ofBusiness Continuity Services, Inc.,(www.BusinessContinuitySvcs.com)a consulting company specializingin business continuity management,crisis management, data centermanagement, and supply chainrisk mitigation. Jim is also theChairperson of The InternationalConsortium for OrganizationalResilience, (www.theICOR.org) anon-profit education andcredentialing organization in the disciplines that supportorganizational resilience. Jim can be contacted atJim@Business ContinuitySvcs.comor jnelson@ theicor.org.


Copyright of Supply Chain Forum: International Journal is the property of BEM Bordeaux Management School

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright

holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Boeing 787 Case