Executive needed a huge amount of workforce to produce

Executive Summary

 

The
case study refers to the big production company of airplanes known as Boeing
which dealt with huge risks regarding the making of their Boeing 777. The
reason why this project was at high risk because the project was extremely
expensive, about 6 billion dollars and they needed a huge amount of workforce
to produce the product. At the initiation of the project, the company was
financially stable and had a string tendency to start an initiative of this
much scope and risk.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

However,
Boeing did realize that the travelling demand will increment and in this
regard, additionally more airplanes which could transport more individuals
would be required. As the company was a solid post in the market they needed to
go for taking a huge risk as to remain aggressive for the competitors in the
market and offer an item which was requested.

The
models of the aircrafts which they had were not according to what the customers
desired because some of the models for example, 767, had apparently no
advantages as compared to the other aircrafts. Thus the business strategy was
meant to change and for Boeing the solution was 777 because it was set to be
the product that was going to revolutionize it all.

However,
Airbus, who was the biggest competitor of Boeing, came to know about the
business strategy of Boeing and changed its policy faster than Boeing. Airbus
also occupied more government subsidies and financial support. By 1990, there
were only two major leading airplane companies, Airbus and Boeing. Airbus was
delivering aircrafts with a large scale manufacturing framework, which was
reflected in the lessening request figures. This was a standout amongst the
most critical purposes behind Boeing to fire up the enormous project 777.

Problem statement

 

The
main issue for Boeing was that its greatest competitor, Airbus, was one step
ahead of Boeing and had a strategy for producing aircrafts in the most flexible
way. The strategy which Airbus had was also technologically advance than
Boeing’s strategy.

Problem and Data analysis

 

Philip
Condit aimed at finding out whether Boeing 767 would be a success or not which
is why he met United Airlines Vice President, Jim Guyette, for advice. Jim
advised him to not peruse 767 and instead go for another jet on a commercial
level. In the December of 1989, the project known as 777 was started and Philip
Condit was to be the lead in the project (Turnipseed, 1999). Condit decided to
make managerial as well as technological innovations in the assembling, design
and manufacturing of the product.

Condit
wanted to revolutionize the manufacturing strategies as well as production
system of Boeing which was previously outdated. The main reason behind this
change in manufacturing and design at Boeing was due to Airbus industries. This
is because Airbus had a huge share in the market and was a major competitor (Condit, 1994).

This
new approach was another open door for Boeing to outline and design another air
ship which would be proficient for the client and for the business strategy.

The new cockpit outline which was like the 747 which a pilot could fly on the
two air ships without additional preparation is an example of the design change
made in the 777 project.

Alternatives

 

Even
though Boeing made a great decision to start up the project 777 that gave the opportunity
to change as well as renovate the entire manufacturing, managerial and design
system, in my opinion, there were some other alternatives to be considered as
well. 

1.     To
proceed with the product offering of their other product, the MD keeping in
mind the end goal to have another aggressively advantageous and competitive
item available in the market.

2.     Keeping
Boeing 767 as a commercial project and not giving up on it.

3.     Starting
a completely different product line which dealt with military and space
aircrafts.

Key decision criteria

 

The
decision criteria are based on attracting more customers through competitive
product line, decreasing the risk of a company going bankrupt and focusing on
two companies merging. Boeing could have their expenses shared by enhancing their
creation line in a savvy way. While having the MD as their client and the other
way around they could build their estimation of the manufacturing, design and
managerial costs and furthermore cut off the generation costs. The target
market and market share is also another decision criteria.

Alternatives analysis and evaluation

 

The
alternative one suggests that keeping MD was another alternative which Boeing
should have considered because MD would have been a huge success in the market
under the name of Boeing in light of the fact that being able to really drive
two distinct items is superior to one. On account of one item isn’t as gainful,
the other one can supplement the hole in income. Additionally taking a gander
at the character of the organization it is smarter to have distinctive
rationalities which apply to various client desires.

The
second alternative, keeping the Boeing 767 project as well would have been
better off because the investment would not have been a total lost cause then.

The 767 project would have kept the market share open and would not have been a
total failure.

The
third alternative, starting a completely different product line which dealt
with military and space aircrafts would give the company a new target market
and expand its horizons. The first alternative is the best one because it
enables the company to increase the target market and make a product offering
with good pricing.

Recommendation

 

The
company ought to have the product line of MD and attempt to profit and bring
advancements towards the two organizations. Moreover, it is less demanding to
change the theory of a small organization and furthermore less expensive
instead of rolling out an improvement to an organization which had been working
in a similar state of mind for a long time (Jørgensen, 2006). Moreover, it is
also recommended that Boeing should try to obtain subsidies as well in order to
reach the fiscal standpoint of Airbus.

Action and implementation plan

 

First Quarter

 

Offer
two different models on the market and upgrade as well as invest in them by introducing
the new technology. Merge both of the companies together.

Stakeholders

 

·     
Customers

·     
Investors

·     
Employees

·     
Competitors

Scope

 

Attracting
more customers through competitive product line, decreasing the risk of a
company going bankrupt and focusing on two companies merging

Second Quarter

 

Enhance
the target market by introducing new innovation in the product line.

Third Quarter

 

Launch
another model which will be manufactured by McDonnel and Douglas Company in
collaboration with Boeing.

Scope

 

It will
attract and retain new customers. After thorough market research an action plan
formulated on market trends in coherence with Boeing’s success and realizing
the demands of Aviation Industry, a proper strategy to launch MD will be
successful.

 

 
References
 

Condit, P. (1994). Focusing on the customer: How
Boeing does it. Research-Technology Management, 400.

Jørgensen, N. (2006). The Boeing 777:
Development Life Cycle Follows Artifact. World Conference on Integrated
Design, 876.

Turnipseed, D. (1999). A history and
evaluation of Boeing’s coalition strategy with Japan in aircraft development
and production. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 453.