I wonder to what extent Boeing employed supply chain management software.   I know that given the history, these products are perhaps newer and possibly not around when the project was launched many years ago, but still.  

MAPICS was the old IBM standard for manufacturing, but I think that was more inventory, accounting rather than the newer stuff from companies like ModusLink (Note:I am an investor in Moduslink) that manage everything in the supply chain in businesses from high tech to retail.

Another factor, as far as changing too many horses midstream was the transfer of the final assemblies from Seattle down to Charleston, SC.   Not casting blame down South, but again when you have a 50 year or more history of labor and supplier relationships, that's hard to replicate in a few years...

Aviation Industry is a very subtle business. It calls for scalpel analysis before launching anything over ambitious. I think Dreamliner turned into a fiasco due to the same bloated and ambitious ideas on the part of management. Some technical snags have really hit project very hard before I could have come to fruition. Qatar, Air Indian and Japan Airways did experiment with the aircraft but the results were disappointing. Boeing industry have yet to address the basic anomalies to make it flawless in the air. Battery problems and smoke in the engine have something to do with the safety of the flight. The passengers would not like to risk their lives with an aircraft which have doubtful safety credentials. The company is still experimenting with the basic systems which should have been tested and tried out before setting its wheel rolling on the runways around the world. Boeing industry should show a bigger heart and accept the mistakes before thier reputation gets damaged. 

There are definitely parallels in other industries, @Usman. We've seen it with car makers, within the computer industry, the integration community, and others. I only hope businesses across the entire spectrum of industries learn from Boeing's highly public errors before they make the same costly (both financially and reputation-wise) mistakes themselves. 

As Geoff's editor for this piece, I'd like to echo @magneticnorth's kudos -- especially as this story was such a moving target. As everyone can see from the comments and news coverage, this story continues to evolve as Boeing investigates and reacts, as airlines and Airbus respond, and as governments look into this whole fiasco. The story is far, far from over, that's for sure. 

@ geoff

$ 22.96 million !! Surely union deserves to go on the strike for even the slightest of problems as everyone deserves a good life at the company if CEO is paid that much.

However, I won't criticize Boeing's board of directors for choosing another person instead of Alan Mullaly as it is board's right to choose the best person around and it is not necessary that the person is an existing employee. Secondly competancy is not always the factor for the CEO. Owners need the CEO who also thinks the way they think for the future of the company and one who can gel in nicely without causing much problem.

This whole scenario with 787 reminds of the time when Mercedes' cars came at the bottom of Top Gear's reliability survey. They did the same thing, tried to increases profit margins at the cost of quality. 

It makes me sad that the company who made 747, 777 got into this mess.

Nice way to make those light batteries heavier. Are they too proud to switch to nickle-cadmium?

Your point re Alan Mullaly goes to show that losing executive chops can mean losing out big time. Boeing should be an engineering organization similar to Google, but it seems to want to be more like a Yahoo (and we know how THAT story went).

@Alison: According to Boeing's hometown paper, The Seattle Times, this is Boeing's secret plan for fixing the battery: "A titanium or steel box would be put around the battery cells, and high-pressure tubes [would] be installed to vent gases outside the aircraft in case of a fire."

Forbes took this 'plan' to a professor at MIT who commented. "Weird. This story must be incomplete. Otherwise, Boeing is evading the real issue which is how to prevent a fire from starting in the first place."

Japan's Transport Safety Board believes the batteries are improperly wired. US investigators disagree because they haven't found the same problem in the domestic planes that caught fire. 

Airbus, who has become the world leader in aviation technology thanks partly to this fiasco, has canceled their plans to use lithium-ion batteries. The nickel-cadmium batteries they're using are 50% heavier than Boeing's... but they don't catch fire.

Seems like the right tradeoff to me.

Today, "Boeing developed a plan that it intends to propose to federal regulators to temporarily fix problems with the 787 Dreamliner's batteries that have kept the planes on the ground for more than a month, a congressional official told The Associated Press." A meeting about the battery is supposed to occur on Friday, the AP article said. 

This is definitely a moving target to write about, Geoff!