This proves to be Boeing’s downfall as they have forgotten a critical component to TPS that was highlighted in the previous section of this paper, oversight.
The problem breaks down into two issues that their TPS hybrid created and left out in the final model. This method only works when the father company, so to speak, is overseeing the entire operation and has to intervene when necessary. For example if the supplier is unable to meet a quota or needs help with something, the father company needs to then take the role of a supplier and then fix the problem together as well as ground their understanding of what goes into the final product so they are not left in the dark(Hartman 2015, pg 8). The other big step is contracting suppliers that have the capability and strong assurance that they can turn a profit on their component. This would lead …show more content…
This leads to higher efficiency which in turn increases profits thanks to its production practices.
Boeing applied a new form of production that had only been tested on very few companies like Toyota. Instead of keeping all forms of production in house or under one central control unit, they split production to other tiers for parts. What Boeing should have done is kept BCE instead of breaking it apart and selling it off (4, Tier 1 Suppliers). By Keeping BCE in tack, they could have kept a better eye on the products that their suppliers were making in order to predict troubleshooting or solve these problems faster. Because Boeing relied on multi-tiered process they were not able to keep a specific record of everything, therefore when it came time to solving the battery problem, Boeing was stuck. Most of the tier 2 and 3 suppliers contracted out their parts of the process to other supply companies during the making of the Boeing 787. Because they other tiers did this, Boeing had no way of easily following a chain of command or production. As stated in the case article, “without complete oversight of
The problem breaks down into two issues that their TPS hybrid created and left out in the final model. This method only works when the father company, so to speak, is overseeing the entire operation and has to intervene when necessary. For example if the supplier is unable to meet a quota or needs help with something, the father company needs to then take the role of a supplier and then fix the problem together as well as ground their understanding of what goes into the final product so they are not left in the dark(Hartman 2015, pg 8). The other big step is contracting suppliers that have the capability and strong assurance that they can turn a profit on their component. This would lead …show more content…
This leads to higher efficiency which in turn increases profits thanks to its production practices.
Boeing applied a new form of production that had only been tested on very few companies like Toyota. Instead of keeping all forms of production in house or under one central control unit, they split production to other tiers for parts. What Boeing should have done is kept BCE instead of breaking it apart and selling it off (4, Tier 1 Suppliers). By Keeping BCE in tack, they could have kept a better eye on the products that their suppliers were making in order to predict troubleshooting or solve these problems faster. Because Boeing relied on multi-tiered process they were not able to keep a specific record of everything, therefore when it came time to solving the battery problem, Boeing was stuck. Most of the tier 2 and 3 suppliers contracted out their parts of the process to other supply companies during the making of the Boeing 787. Because they other tiers did this, Boeing had no way of easily following a chain of command or production. As stated in the case article, “without complete oversight of