Government investigators in both the United States and Japan have been furiously trying to figure out what caused a fire aboard a JAL Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
Early in the investigation, officials focused on the charred battery and then on the battery's auxiliary power unit (APU). The APU, manufactured by Securaplane Technologies Inc. in Tucson, Ariz., was quickly absolved of blame when investigators found no anomalies in the suspect unit. The latest thinking focuses on the battery cells themselves.
As the investigation continues, Boeing has already pointed the finger at its own supply chain, at least according to an investigative story in The Seattle Times. The newspaper reported this week:
Company engineers blame the 787's outsourced supply chain, saying that poor quality components are coming from subcontractors that have operated largely out of Boeing's view.
Anonymous engineers quoted in the story are blaming power panels as the probable source and noting that, while faults experienced in the 787 are not out of the range of those experienced with the Boeing 777, there has been an unusual number of electrical faults.
The Seattle Times story continues:
A senior Boeing engineer not directly involved with the 787 said he believes the company's early delegation of control on 787 outsourcing to multiple tiers of suppliers is now coming back to bite the jet program, though it made belated efforts to tighten up oversight of suppliers.
"The supplier management organization (at Boeing) didn't have diddly-squat in terms of engineering capability when they sourced all that work," he said.
Boeing won't comment on the allegation other than to deny any lax supply-chain oversight.
Damning, anonymously
Two things about this story make my head spin.
First off, the most damning information in the story is attributed to a "senior Boeing engineer not directly involved with the 787." That should speak for itself. A jealous engineer who didn't get a plum 787 job when the project started? Or perhaps an engineer with an offshoring/outsourcing axe to grind?
Second, one of the keys to the Dreamliner project was the extensive use of the supply-chain. Like any other huge manufacturing company, Boeing has extensive procurement rules and regulations and a favored suppliers lists. So I have to believe that Boeing -- no fly-by-night organization -- has a pretty solid supply-chain oversight system.
Of course, there could be lax oversight, but my real point here is if the problem is traced to a supplier, it's not the supply chain's problem -- it's the supplier's problem and, ultimately, an engineering problem. Electronics design and manufacturing is hugely complex and open to bugs, shorts, and faults, whether it's outsourced or done by Boeing's internal engineering.
Maybe it's just me, but let's not blame a supply chain that companies trust and rely on because of a fault along the chain. Identify the source of the problem and fix it by tightening the Q/A within that company or removing the company from the chain.
I would say you are spot on. It is not the supply chain .....it is a supplier or two or three. It is just in our face because BOEING is a big company which created a cutting edge passanger plane. They used more battery backed systems to replace a lot of the electro mechanical systems used in the hydraulics........less weight more fuel savings, longer in flight mileage. Pushing new technology always has draw backs. Thankfullly all the planes were grounded and there was no tragic loss of life. My bet is that BOEING will find the fix and the 787 will go on to be a great plane.
A company like Boeing cannot exist without a water tight supply chain. By definition, Boeing's work is all about contingency, risk management and fault avoidance, which I am sure applies to their supply chain too. Therefore, one supplier's poor work cannot be attributed to all the supply chain members and to a very successful company like Boeing.
In cases like this, the best any company can do is to analyse where and why things went wrong, make the required changes to move forward stronger and with improved wisdom.
If it is a supplier then it is a supply chian problem. Supply chain shall have strong engineering knowledge to make sure all the outsourced development or supply chain will not become a prey for lower quality parts end up into the product. Glad there is no tragedy happened till now and Boeing should rethink and improve the quality check. Otherwise any small mistake will cost big money.
I agree with Rohscompliant. All new designs will go through some amount of 'growing pains'. It is very difficult to account for any problem that may occur, no matter how well engineered a product is. We can all blame Murphy's Law.
Almost fell out of my chair on that line, Rich. Point taken. I occasionally want to pull my hair out. Other times I just curse between gritted teeth... still other times there are no gritted teeth!
Absolutely, although I think we all have the urge to micromanage our suppliers (in whatever form they work with us), it's humanly impossible.
That said, as you point out, the systems are in place to cull the herd, if you will. However for Boeing, this could be a moment that damages their business in the medium term.
The strategic vision was a cost-efficient, fuel-efficient aircraft that was relevant to as many routes as possible. Then, leverage the supply chain like it's never been leveraged before. Makes perfect sense.
Here's hoping it very isolated problem with the battery cells themselves. The latest, from our colleague Chuck Murray at DesignNews, is that the NTSB is citing a short in one the cells. They still don't have a sense for what caused the short. (http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=258717&itc=dn_analysis_element&)
Yes, I agree with Boeing Sr Engineer. Outsourcing of highly engineered product is very demanding task. Involvement of not so technical supply chain and management people, with their attitude to simplfy all problems and its solution introduces many risks to program. There are many lessons to learn. I wish Boeing enginner can soon find root couse and rectify it.
Topping the list of the world’s biggest electronics distributors were Avnet and Arrow,followed by WPG Holdings, Future Electronics,
and WT Microelectronics.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This