Keyword: Boeing

A good friend of mine is part of the senior management team for the Boeing 787 “Dreamliner” project.  As a student of project management, I love to catch up with him every now and then to discuss this unbelievably complex endeavor.

While I’ve been up-close-and-personal to tremendously large and complex projects (like Windows NT) involving thousands of people and hundreds of thousands of variables, nothing can compare to the development of a new commercial airplane.

Just imagine hundreds of thousand of parts, some larger than a football field, some smaller than the tip of a pen, and all being built (especially for this project) by suppliers located around the world.  Stir in tens of thousands of people, billions of dollars, and oh yeah, don’t forget that peoples’ lives are at stake, and you have a recipe for a project management nightmare.  And my friend’s job is a key position in the coordination and assembly of all these various parts.  With the plane scheduled for its maiden flight in a few months, he’s having a lot of fun these days.

One of the things that Boeing and many other companies have long struggled with is delivering the best product they can build while simultaneously pleasing their customers.  With previous airplanes, Boeing has let customers design their own interiors, galleys, bathrooms, overhead storage, seats, avionics (cockpit controls), and so on.  The company essentially offered a shell that flew and let customers make the inside to suit their needs and taste.  This explains why your carry-on fits in some overhead bins and not in others.  Each airline chooses their own style.

This approach was remarkably customer-friendly, but it exponentially increased the complexity of building aircraft.  With every airline choosing different configurations, each plane — even each bathroom, was custom made.  At most they would see a customer order 10 or so planes with the same configuration.  Imagine the pain that Boeing and its suppliers would be in never getting to scale up production for even the soap dispensers.  And try to imagine the complexity of assembling and testing these incredibly complex machines, each one different from the next.

This was all supposed to end with the 777 model a few years ago.  My friend was told repeatedly by management that customers would be given only a few choices to make for each item, and that configurations would be standardized.  But then the sales team began selling the planes.  And customers began expecting the same custom-built planes they always had in the past.  The sales people had a hard time telling a customer who was placing a multi-BILLION dollar order, “no, you can’t have fries with that”.

Pretty soon, the number of bathroom configurations mushroomed from 4 to 40, and they were back where they started.  The 777 is widely different when flown by United than when flown by British Airways.  It’s a complex and difficult product to build and test.  And it’s nowhere near as profitable as the company had hoped it would be.

For the 787 project, to quote Bullwinkle J.  Moose, “This time for sure!”  This project is made significantly more complex by the choice of vendors quite literally from around the globe.  Parts are being made in Italy, Japan, and all over the US.  To allow customers to choose from an infinite variety of configurations would be a potential coordination disaster.  So with this plane the company is being far stricter about forcing customers to stay “on catalog”.

In fact, my friend leads a weekly meeting they call the “no” meeting.  Sales people from all around the globe call in trying to convince manufacturing to build just this one custom part for this very special customer.  And the answer is always “no”.  They push the sales person to escort the customer back to the catalog.

And you know what?  The customers are fine with that.  The 787 is the fastest selling plane in commercial aviation history, with almost 600 orders before the thing has even left the ground [pun intended].  Turns out customers recognize the value of standardization in cost savings, quality, training, and time to delivery.  They didn’t really need custom soap dispensers, they were just pushing as far as they could, because they could.

So far the “no” meeting has held, except for one special case.  The galley carts (you know, those knee bashing things they drag up and down the aisle) are customized.  You see, the airlines already have thousands of them, with each airline’s different from the next.  Boeing just couldn’t tell them “no” in this case.  So they’ve built adapters to make the standard galley accept your special cart.  But they’re holding the line everywhere else.

What’s the leadership lesson here?  The same lesson I preach about all the time: have a vision, stick to it, and sell the heck out of it.  Your team will love you, and customers will beat a path to your door.

When the Boeing leadership let the customers run roughshod over the manufacturing team, they paid the price.  Now that they have decided to stick by their team, sales are up, morale is up, all signs are that the product will be better, and it certainly will cost less.

How can you learn from the experience of one of the largest manufacturers in the world handling a project a thousand times more complex than yours?  The same thing: believe in your vision, your product, and your team.  The customer isn’t always right, sometimes you need to stand up for your vision.  Sure you need to recognize your own “galley cart” case, but most customers, like children, appreciate it when you show a little discipline.

Mulally and Ford at the Coronation Announcement

The Wall Street Journal had a marvelous article [ed: unfortunately subscription-only] about the turnaround Alan Mulally is trying to make at Ford.  I have written about this before (see this post here), but put simply, I am a huge fan of Mr. Mulally.  He did great things at Boeing, and from what I can tell from this article, he’s off to a great start at Ford too.

The article goes on to describe in detail how Mulally is analyzing a business he is admittedly new to, and how he’s working on his plan for change at the company.

The fate of this automotive icon rests on the aggressive plans of Mr. Mulally, a former Boeing Co. executive who has spent his career outside the auto industry.  His emerging agenda calls for Ford to plow through “gut-wrenching” change to achieve profitability by 2009.

From what I can see, he’s hitting all the right notes by focusing on brand overlap, silly inconsistencies and waste between brands, and overall efficiency.  Again, this is a guy who has moved mountains at one of the largest employers in the country, I’m sure he can make strides here. “‘I’ve seen this movie before,’ Mr. Mulally told his new executive team when he took over Oct. 1.”  I just wish he could teach our president a thing or two about analyzing situations and facing ugly facts, but I digress…

One of the more interesting notes in the article however, very much caught my eye.

In the executive suite he shares with Chairman Bill Ford, Mr. Mulally says he asked Mr. Ford why he hadn’t integrated the company.  He says Mr. Ford agreed that integration was desirable, but told him it was difficult.  Every time Ford had considered forcing integration, a new hit product — such as the Explorer, Taurus or F-series truck — would come along and propel profitability without tough changes, explained the fourth-generation Ford leader.

To steal from Mr. Mulally, I’ve seen this movie before too.  I have watched more than a few companies put off changes they knew they needed to make because they were blinded by their success.  And the more bright the light from the current success, the more blinded they became to the obvious issues.  It’s important to realize this not only applies to products and/or projects, but also to people.  We tend to overlook the worst part of peoples’ behavior when they are having success as well.

I saw it quite a bit at Microsoft.  It is no secret that the Windows team recently made some major changes in leadership that were long overdue.  Those changes were put off time and again by the product’s stunning profitability and the fear of killing the golden goose.  There are a dozen more, less public, examples of products that were off-target and in need of correction, but still creating revenues that would finance even the most outrageous debacles.

We also had managers who were simply terrible, and yet were continually promoted or rewarded for their results. I discuss this here too, but success postpones many needed HR actions at Microsoft and elsewhere.  I even wrote in the performance review of one jerk who worked for me that he “is being removed from a supervisor position and being returned to an individual contributor role, and should never again be allowed to supervise others.”  He was recently mentioned in a national publication as a potential future CEO of the company.

The point of all this is that, just like dental hygiene, auto maintenance, and many other things, just because you seem to be OK today doesn’t mean your gut instinct that things need to be fixed is wrong.  Don’t let success blind you to the changes you need to make.  And don’t, please, make that jerk your CEO.

I had the privilege joy chore of taking the flight from Seoul to Seattle a couple of days ago.  If you haven’t had this fortune, it’s a 10 hour flight through 16 time zones where you arrive 6 hours before you left.  I’m not a good sleeper on planes so any of these long-haul, multi-timezone flights are hard.  This one was especially noteworthy, however.

We flew on Asiana Airlines, a Seoul based carrier that was a special treat.  Unlike their state-owned competitor, Korean Air Lines, they focus on the long-haul traveller and do it very well.  It is a formula that includes the latest planes (ours was a new Boeing 777-200), all the best amenities (like 110v and 220v outlets in each business-class seat), and very impressive service.  There were 13 attendants, plus a flight crew, on a flight I’m sure a US carrier would have had 6 people working.  At the start of the flight, the entire staff stands at the head of the aisle and bows to the passengers.  In business-class, they pampered us constantly with two three course meals, constant checking on our welfare, and genuine smiles.  You really got the impression they cared about you.

Which gets me around to the point of all this.  I really needed caring for on this flight.  Everything that could go wrong did.

While in Korea, I found I really enjoyed the food.  For some, kimchi and other native tastes require getting used to.  For me, I took to them immediately.  And Asiana offers two meal services: western and Korean.  So on the way back I tried the Korean fare.  Well my bibambop (sort of a rice and vegetable version of the Cold Stone “mix ins”) was stone cold.  Normally it is served quite hot, and my most recent experience at a fine Seoul eatery was served in an iron bowl that had to be 1100 degrees.  In this case it was not even warm.  But did I care?  How could I?  The service was so good, the attendants were there with more champagne, taking away empties, adding treats, etc. that I forgot it wasn’t perfect.

Then, within an hour of the start of the flight, my fancy 777 “wonder-chair”, the seat with a half-dozen motors, lumbar adjustments, and a “bed mode” simply stopped working.  Wouldn’t budge.  It had worked for a while, but suddenly there I was in my full upright and locked position.  Not the best way to spend 10 hours.  So I inquired of some assistance.

I was swarmed with help.  The head of cabin service eventually took my seat apart.  She was unable to get it to work as intended, but found all the manual controls, and adjusted it to my liking.  Throughout the balance of the flight I was checked on to be sure the seat was where I wanted it, and to apologize profusely for the failure.  At one point the assistant purser insisted that I get a nap, and graciously turned it into “bed mode”.  I actually slept on an airplane — a true feat for me.

My point in all this is that service really does matter.  And more to the point, outstanding service can make up for any number of problems in the product.  I’m sure that on a US carrier, I would have had someone who would have done something about my issues with the flight.  But I’m also sure they would have done it grudgingly, with a tone of “oh, great, now what’s your problem?”  On this flight, it was clear they really wanted to make me happy.  And it made all the difference.

Think about it.  Here I am, in a quite public forum, raving about an airline’s service.  But I had a terrible flight: cold food, a broken seat, and a video system that couldn’t have been more jumpy/flaky/noisy.  What do I remember?  The service.  The genuine kindness and concern of the employees.

I’m a customer of Asiana’s for life.  Next time I’m headed to Korea, or anywhere in Asia, I’m going to see if they fly there.

What does this say about your organization?  It says that service not only matters, is not only a good thing to have, but it may save you from a whole lot of other faults.  It may be the thing that makes that missed deadline, that faulty part, that little mistake go away.

And great service is about the only thing that makes customers-for-life.  People don’t become customers-for-life because of low prices.  If someone comes along with a lower price, they’re gone.  They don’t become customers-for-life because of a good product.  As soon as someone offers that same product, they’re vulnerable to switching.

People become customers-for-life because of other people.  They feel a connection, a relationship.  And they want to continue that relationship.  So do whatever it takes to make your organization care about its customers.  You may keep them forever.

My mother called it back in June.  Billy Ford wasn’t long for this world.  I grew up in the shadow of Detroit, and my family always had connections into the auto industry.  She knew the Ford family was restless, and that Billy was in trouble.

The board [family] forced him out.  In a way, that’s too bad, since he is a really nice guy, charming, bright, “from good stock” as they used to say.  But, clearly, it was long overdue.  His departure is kind of sad for the Ford family, yet nothing but good for the company.  It also says something about family leadership and the challenge of passing down a Fortune 500 company generation to generation.

Bill Ford was probably doomed from the start.  If you think about his challenge, it was simply too much to ask of anyone, let alone a nice guy like little Bill.  He grew up in this company.  He toddled around the offices for years, sat on the laps of key leaders, and cut whatever business teeth he had under the big blue oval logo.  Even if he had a great vision of how to overhaul the stodgy old company, it was simply too much to ask someone to shake up a culture that was generations old — generations of his family.

These last few years must have been a nightmare for Bill.  He must have been in countless meetings where he said emphatically “we have to change, we have to do things differently, we have to shake off these cobwebs!” [ed: At least let’s hope he did (see my post here)] Only to be greeted by layer upon layer of senior management that looked blankly at him, shook their heads marvelling at how little Billy had grown, pinched his cheek and said something like “but that’s not how Henry would’ve done it.”  He couldn’t fire some of these people, it would be like firing your uncle.  For the family to expect him to make “bold moves” was simply unrealistic.

Alan Mulally and Bill Ford

Now the Ford board has made a super choice: they have selected Alan Mulally, formerly of Boeing, as CEO.  I’m a huge Mulally fan, if only from my view outside the company.  But throughout his turn at the helm of Boeing’s Commercial Airplane group, he was a sharp, effective leader.  And since his promotion opportunities were limited at Boeing by a new top dog (see my post here), moving on makes great sense for him.

I first became familiar with Alan Mulally during the development of the 777 airplane.  This was a huge deal in these parts, as it was the chance for the “Lazy B” to shake its old cobwebs and really develop something new and different.  Leading up to the launch, Mulally had numerous opportunities to appear in the press, and he always managed to do it with aplomb and to show his leadership skills.  At the launch (covered as if it were the Second Coming around here), he outshined the rest of the Boeing leadership as the clear, thoughtful, and talented one of the bunch.  Then, the incessant airing of the “Making of…” video on the local PBS station allowed us an even closer look at what a solid leader Alan really is.  He had done it, turned around the supertanker, practically in its own boatlength.

Recently, Mulally spearheaded the “Dreamliner” project, an even more ambitious plane that is, if leading-edge sales are to be believed, eating Airbus’s lunch.  It was a bold move, at a time when Boeing clearly dominated the huge plane market with it’s 747, and a simple tweak to that plane could offer again the largest plane in the world, he bet on moderation.  According to friends I have on the 787 (as the Dreamliner is now called) team, and they tell of Mulally passionately arguing of the demise of the monster busses with wings, and the coming move to smaller, more fuel efficient, point-to-point aircraft.  And how right he was, as if he could see $4.00 gas from the dust of 9/11.  It has been a brilliant move, and the 787 is a bold and beautiful plane.  Now all they have to do is ship it (no small feat, I hear the carbon fiber parts aren’t fun to manufacture).

Mulally seems, therefore, perfectly suited to follow through on Ford’s “Bold Moves”.  He’s the kind of person who seeks out a vision, and can get a whole, huge corporation behind it.  To paraphrase an old Ford advertisement, maybe Mulally does “have a better idea”.  The family and shareholders are certainly betting on it

James McNerney took over as CEO of Boeing a little more than a year ago.  But you haven’t heard much about him for the last year.  That might lead you to think he’s not been busy.

But he’s been doing what any good deciple of Jack Welch would do when taking over a company — “deep dives”, taking a long hard look way down in the organization to see what he inheritted.  I’m sure it was an eye-opener.

Jim McNerney

Boeing has taken a lot of hits for a long time, not just in the recent ethics scandals.  In Seattle, Boeing has been ridiculed as the epitomy of bloated big business.  One nickname from the late 20th century was “the lazy B”.  Around here, you can pick out the Boeing employees just like the Microsoft ones.  They are stereotypical nerds all, differing largely only by the generation.

The tens of thousands of proud Boeing plane builders are local fixtures, and their relationship with company management has been rocky since the beginning.  Not aided by a argumentative union (see my post on that here), the ebb and flow of the company’s fortunes take the larger local economy with it.  This effect has been lessened, but by no means removed, by the additional of software and biotech to the local scene.

Boeing’s relationship wtih Seattle hit a big low, when the former CEO Phil Condit made the rather absurd move to take it’s headquarters to Chicago.  This choice was ridiculous because the company had essentially no business operations nearby (and was shuttering those it did have).

In an amazing show of hubris, Condit held a public contest to see which city would give the most largesse to Boeing for moving their headquarters there.  In an over-hyped press event, the company selected Chicago while on board a Boeing jet headed for…  may I have the envelope, please…  Chicago!  It was a ridiculous spectacle, it moved less than 0.1% of the employees there, and (rumor has it) was only done because Condit and his wife wanted better restaurants and night life.  The reasoning was to put them in the middle of their customers, within a short flight to them all.  But, in point of fact, their largest growth market for the company is the Pacific Rim, and Seattle is far closer to those customers.  Yet another reason why Condit is long gone.

All of this makes McNerney’s challenge even more important especially to those around here.  He needs to restore a sense of sanity in a company that seems to lost its way much like Enron, Worldcom, and the other famous debacles of the end of the last Century.

His biggest challenge may well be finding a a way to get this behemoth, famous for everything from commercial aircraft, huge government contracts, and questionable ethics, to focus on something…  anything.  The company appears to be involved in all manner of large military and aerospace projects and master of none.  As I have said repeatedly, focus on some vision, any vision, is important.  McNerney seems to agree.

With recent wins in the big plane arena, whether because Airbus is stepping on its own tail or not, McNerney has a great chance to celebrate some successes, and move toward the future.  Their new “Dreamliner”, the 787, looks to be a hit — just what the company needs right now.  If they can actually ship the thing (friends inside tell me this will be no small accomplishment) they stand to regain their crown as the world’s planemaker.

This gives Jim McNerney one great leg upon which to rebuild the company, and I wish him the best of luck.  Not only because my own selfish interests wish well for Seattle, or because Boeing is the strongest exporter fighting in our national balance of trade war.  Mostly I wish them well because the whole country needs to see a large company that clearly lost its way in the last century regain it in this new one.

Right to the head of my observations on the importance of symbols to an organization marches the International Association of Machinists, District 751.  I’m not sure I could ever find a more perfect symbol of union’s gone wild than this one.

IAM Website

The IAM is the union that represents the bulk of the line labor at Boeing’s aircraft assembly plants.  This union is a key reason why Boeing’s employment see-saws from year to year, and was probably a key cause of the infamous billboards that read: “will the last one who leaves Seattle please turn out the lights” in the 1970’s. This union is famous for its hardcore stances, and its strikes at the expense of everyone involved, including their members.

Their website is symbolism enough, with the top “Job Info” links on the page being about what to do if you’re the “victim” of a job action or being warned of a layoff.  No, not about job training, or even joining the union, but rather “how did the company screw you today?”  Yes, that’s pretty good symbolism in itself.

IAM Sculpture

However, I had heard about the monuments in front of District 751 headquarters in Seattle for some time.  I just had to check them out for myself.  What I found was amazing.  Yes, they have a sculpture garden in front of the headquarters (where are your union dues today?).  And yes, one of them is of people actually working on an airplane.  Even better, it’s a man and a woman working — probably a nod to Rosie the Riviter of WWII fame.  Homage to a proud heritage of building some of the most amazing and world-changing machines to be sure.

IAM Monument

But the union saves their biggest and most elaborate monument to show their true colors.  The main monument on the site, the one with the American, state, and union flagpoles, and the one at center stage, it the most stunning.  This monument is not an homage to the workers and the incredible machines they build.  No, it is an homage to the striker.

The picture is hard to see, so let me guide you through the panels.  At the center is a pair of large “751″ symbols, above is a winged logo of the IAM, and behind are the three aforementioned flagpoles.  This is all good.

Mounument Panel

No, it’s the four panels on either side that are the clearest symbols (although not the best of photographs here).  The panels depict strikers carrying picket signs and gathered around a burn barrel.  For example, the leftmost panel (shown) has people carrying signs that read: “COLA”, “Paid Holidays”, “Seniority”, and “Union Shop”.  The second panel’s striker’s sign says “Hold the line 89″.  It is the panel to the far right that has the group gathered around the burn barrel.

What does it say about this organization when the most important monument is dedicated not to the good things that they do, not to the hard work of their thousands of members, and not to a spirit of cooperation and working together, but rather to how defiant they can be?  It’s like an homage to a six-year-old’s temper tantrum in the grocery store.

What it really speaks to is the mind set of the leaders of the union.  Here is a group of people who truly believe their finest hours have been not wins, but rather impasses.  They get their strength not as a group of leaders but rather as a mob.  Their top priorities are not really the welfare of their members as people, but maintenace of their union as a group.

I have strong opinions about unions, and I will say a great deal more about them in the future.  But I’m not sure I’ll ever say it as clearly as the IAM says it themself with this astounding monument.