The Case of Boeing and Airbus-Free-Samples-Myassignmenthelp.com

Question: How do Organizations learn from a drastic failure? Distinguish between ad hoc and systematic reactions and discuss their effectiveness for dealing with two basic challenges. Answer: Introduction Murasaki Aircraft Corporation (MAC) is a new aircraft manufacturer that is looking to enter the medium size passenger jet market even though there is a stiff competition from the heavyweights like Boeing and Airbus. However, the owner of MAC is not interested in making the same mistakes both of these companies did and hence, needs to analyze the root causes of the mistakes so that the same are not repeated in the case of MAC. It has been found that the businesses of Boeing and Airbus were negatively affected by two separate management approaches that were initially supposed to be fruitful (Kotha Srikanth, 2013). While Boeing was affected by the lack of insight during technical implementation, Airbus was affected by poor management decisions and internal disputes inside the organization. In this essay, the cases of Boeing and Airbus have been analyzed in detail in order to find the root causes of the problems faced by them. Taking the analysis results as lessons, suitable recommendations have been made for MAC so that they do not repeat the same mistakes as Boeing and Airbus did. Analysis and Recommendations for MAC Airbus and Boeing are both popular aircraft manufacturers that are currently the mostly used aircrafts around the world. However, the aircrafts from the two companies are different in nature, structure, capacity and other factors. While Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft is specially constructed to reduce the overall weight of the aircraft in order to make it easier to fly whereas Airbus A380 is mainly build for high passenger capacity. According to their operational strategy, both the companies follow partnering policy i.e. they strike partnership with other companies (e.g. aircraft parts manufacturer, interior design, power supply, etc.) (Shenhar, Holzmann, Melamed Zhao, 2016). However, this partnering policy has turned out to be problematic and both of the companies are facing losses rather than profits from this partnering policy. The partnering policy was mainly implemented in order spread the manufacture defects and risks to different organizations so that they could be solved eas ily (Dutton, 2016). However, this policy was not of much use as the risks have still remained for both the companies as both of them have different approaches to address the problems. While Boeing 787 Dreamliner mainly emphasized on short term fixes, Airbus A380 emphasized on long term developments and implemented their changes slowly on a regular basis (Gokhale, Raghavan Tremblay, 2014). As a result, A380 has gained a lot of market in recent times whereas the business of Boeing 787 Dreamliner has fallen in spite of having efficient lightweight aircrafts. Boeing and Airbus have adopted two entirely different approaches for business developments that led to different positive and negative outcomes. Being is one of the oldest aircraft manufacturer that is still active today and until a few years ago, Boeing relied on their initial aircraft designs that were operational previously. For some time, it was very popular due to lack of many alternatives. Boeing provided large passenger capacity (ranging from 350 to 450), had high travel speed and light weight that made it easy for the pilots to fly though any air condition (Song, Li, Song Zhang, 2014). When Airbus came to the market, it became instantly popular due to several reasons. The Airbus A380 was the largest passenger aircraft the world had even seen (the aircraft could carry up to 840 compared to only 425 in 787 Dreamliner). Naturally, due to the high capacity, the aircraft had to be of a very large size as well as to include wider space in the interior than usual. Furthermore, the A380 was a few times heavier than the 787 Dreamliner and hence, needed efficient control during flight. A380 also came with the latest scientific and technical facilities that were miles ahead of 787 Dreamliner. Due to these factors, the Dreamliner faced steep competition from A380 and the business started to decline (Elahi, Sheikhzadeh Lamba, 2014). However, after a few years, the business of A380 also dipped by a significant margin owing to the fact that the flight tickets were extremely expensive and not all pilots could drive an airbus owing to its size and weight. Boeing and Airbus took certain initiatives to check the fall and rise again in the market. Boeing chose to address customer satisfaction issues immediately and started to implement changes in the interior designs and passenger facilities of the aircrafts. However, this approach had both positive and negative effects on the business of 787 Dreamliner. The main positive effect was that the passenger facilities were massively improved resulting in modern technical facilities that attracted more customers (Al-Najjar et al., 2017). The passenger comfort increased inside the aircraft and 787 started gaining more passengers. In addition, Boeing also decided to use different materials for building the body of the aircrafts and order to increase operational efficiency (Drfler Baumann, 2014). The negative outcome of this approach was that due to the change in the building materials, the running and operational costs also increased considerably and furthermore, many technical glitches started to appear due to the change in materials of the aircraft body. These technical faults were not solved as the company rather focused on providing a customer-friendly experience rather that efficient and safe flight of the aircrafts. On the other hand, the approach of Airbus was to implement a lot of overall changes in a short amount of time in order offer passenger comfort as well as implement latest technological improvements in the overall aircraft (Wright, 2015). These changes initially had a positive impact on the business of Airbus and the passenger count increased by a significant margin. The latest technological improvements improved the passenger facilities inside the aircraft and also aided the pilots to make safe and efficient flights over large distances. However, problems arose when sufficient maintenance was done on the aircrafts. Airbus failed to realize that significant technical improvements also require regular maintenance and monitoring in order to address implement ation faults and failures (Evans, 2015). On the other hand, Airbus implemented so many changes at such a short amount time, they did not have enough opportunity for implementation follow up or addressing the errors of the implementation. As a result, in addition to bearing huge expenses during the implementation phase, the company also started encountering expenses for delayed maintenance and repair (Kroese, 2014). Some of the common problems faced by Airbus A380 included lack of electric cabling connections between various modules of the aircraft to development of aircraft design that was immediately rejected by some of the regular customers of the company. Some in-depth analyses have been conducted in order to find the main causes behind the implementation failures of both Airbus and Boeing. For Boeing, the first main cause behind the failure was the decision to outsource, both nationally and internationally. It was expected that outsourcing will reduce their operational costs and will also help to accelerate their development (Francis, 2016). However, the result was opposite; Boeing lost a lot of money on the outsourcing and the development project they were conducting took an extra 3 years that further increased their expenses. In addition, Boeing 787 had many operational problems mainly due to the new aircraft bodies and the batteries used to power the plan. Removing the aluminium body of the aircraft, Boeing started using composite material made of aluminium, carbon fiber and titanium for 787 Dreamliner (Song et al., 2014). Although the composite material increased the overall weight of the aircraft, the maintenance of internal con ditions changed and the craft was more efficient in maintaining the internal conditions like humidity and temperature (Simons, 2014). Furthermore, Boeing switched to lithium ion batteries to power the craft that initially helped the craft to complete long distance journeys without any requirement of layoffs. However, within some time, it was found that the aircrafts overheated easily due to the lithium ion batteries as well as the composite material body. Although no major accidents have been reported, it still posed a significant risk for the passengers inside the flight (Kleinaltenkamp, Behrens Reh, 2014). In addition, it has also been found that the lack of coordination between organizations to whom, Boeing outsourced, was also a major reason for the failure of 787 Dreamliner. Whenever, any technical faults were reported, the outsourced companies started publicly blaming each other in order to avoid the responsibilities of such technical faults. On the other hand, the problems f aced by Airbus A380 were mainly rooted to the organizational structure and operations rather than technical (Efimov, Cieslak, Zolghadri Henry, 2013). However, there were also reported many technical failures that were mainly due to the ignorance of the builders end. As evident from the operational policy of Airbus, the company has a number of partners who supply various parts of the aircraft that are then assorted together to build the aircrafts in the manufacturing facility. However, at a certain point of time, it was found that Airbus A380 had a number of technical problems. One of the main problems that were highlighted was the fault in the electrical connection inside the aircraft as it was found that the electrical wirings of two different modules inside the craft were not connected. After some in-depth analysis, it was found that this problem arose because the wiring frame and the wiring harness were manufactured at different facilities (Shenhar et al., 2016). As a result, the wiring harness did not fit the wiring frame and hence, the wirings of two modules could not be connected together. When questions were raised, the two companies who manufactured the frame and the harness started public dispute. Some researchers also blamed the organi zational structure and the stakeholders inside the company behind the failure of A380. It was reported that the topmost members of the Airbus management board remained loyal to a particular group of clients who were always used for supply of materials and equipments even if much better alternatives were available in the market. The company was blamed for convoluted management structure that was said to affect the outcomes of decision making regarding the companys operations (Kotha Srikanth, 2013). Some other researchers also pointed to the internal disputes in the management board that resulted in delayed and poor decision makings in the operations. In both the cases, the management team is to be blamed for the failure of the Airbus A380. Based on the study of both the cases, it has been learned that both management and technical implementations are necessary for the success of an aircraft company. From Boeing 787 case, it has been learnt that the company should consider the maintenance factor and the aftereffects of any implementation instead of just emphasizing on immediate impacts for customer satisfaction (Jansen et al., 2015). From Airbus A380, it has been found that an aircraft manufacturer should have an efficient and dynamic management system that will always emphasizing on best quality of supplies rather than relying on some fixed clients whose standards are either poor or rapidly falling (Efimov et al., 2013). Hence, for MAC, it can be recommended that in order to enter into direct competition with two powerhouses, it must emphasize on both technical upgrades and selection of a suitable management team. There should be no cultural differences in the team as well as no internal disputes. Rather, the managemen t team should held meetings and collect together different ideas to select the best possible alternative. For the technical upgrades, the company should not choose the ones for immediate solution and rather settle for long term settlements. Conclusion Finally, it can be concluded that from the cases of both Airbus and Boeing, several lessons have been learnt regarding the consequences of poor management decisions and lack of proper technical implementations in aircraft industry. The business of Airbus has fallen prey to the poor management system and lack of proper decision making whereas Boeing has fallen prey to the lack of sufficient insight of the technical implications that might arise in the near future. MAC should keep in mind these factors and should be careful in the approaches to enter the aircraft industry. The owner should choose a management team that will not be affected by cultural diversity and the disputes will be solved mutually by conducting discussion meetings. For technical implementations and upgrades, the company should proceed with great care and perform risk analysis before implementation of a particular upgrade. References Al-Najjar, N., Al-Najjar, N., Aoyagi, I., Aoyagi, I., Goldstein, G., Goldstein, G., Korupp, T., Korupp, T., Liu, B., Liu, B. and Singh, S., 2017. Boeing and Airbus: Competitive Strategy in the Very-Large-Aircraft Market.Kellogg School of Management Cases, pp.1-16. Drfler, I., Baumann, O. 2014. Learning from a drastic failure: the case of the Airbus A380 program.Industry and Innovation,21(3), 197-214. Dutton, J., 2016. Have Boeing and Airbus overstepped the production line?.Airfinance Journal. Efimov, D., Cieslak, J., Zolghadri, A., Henry, D. 2013. Actuator fault detection in aircraft systems: Oscillatory failure case study.Annual Reviews in Control,37(1), 180-190. Elahi, E., Sheikhzadeh, M., Lamba, N. 2014. An integrated outsourcing framework: Analyzing Boeing's outsourcing program for Dreamliner (B787).Knowledge and Process Management,21(1), 13-28. Evans, R., 2015. MoM into momentum--the case for the middle market: will developing a new 180-250-seat airliner make economic sense for Boeing and Airbus?.Flight International. Francis, L., 2016. China's comac to challenge Boeing and Airbus.IEEE Spectrum,53(1), pp.49-50. Gokhale, J., Raghavan, S., Tremblay, V. J. 2014. The Effect on Stockholders Wealth on Critical Systems Failure and Remedy: The Boeing 787 Case.Journal of International Finance and Economics,14(2), 213. Jansen, R.H., Brown, G.V., Felder, J.L. and Duffy, K.P., 2015. Turboelectric aircraft drive key performance parameters and functional requirements. Kleinaltenkamp, M., Behrens, R. and Reh, S., 2014. Deal-Making Negotiations by Governments and Major Product Suppliers: A Case Study of the US Department of Defense and Airbus versus Boeing. InField Guide to Case Study Research in Business-to-business Marketing and Purchasing(pp. 1-11). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Kotha, S., Srikanth, K. 2013. Managing a global partnership model: lessons from the Boeing 787 Dreamlinerprogram.Global Strategy Journal,3(1), 41-66. Kroese, R. 2014. Weight reductions for the airbus A380; postbuckling of the A380 VTP skin panels.Leonardo Times, 18 (2) 2014. Shenhar, A. J., Holzmann, V., Melamed, B., Zhao, Y. 2016. The Challenge of Innovation in Highly Complex Projects: What Can We Learn from Boeing's Dreamliner Experience?Project Management Journal,47(2), 62-78. Simons, G. 2014.The Airbus A380: A History. UK: Pen and Sword. Song, T., Li, Y., Song, J., Zhang, Z. 2014. Airworthiness considerations of supply chain management from Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery issue.Procedia Engineering,80, 628-637. Wright, S. J. 2015. Avionics and airborne computing.