Managing New Product

Development and
Supply Chain Risks:
The Boeing 787 Case
Christopher S. Tang
and Joshua D. Zimmerman1
UCLA Anderson School
[email protected]
[email protected]

Commented by

James I. Nelson M.S.

MBCP, CORP
Business Continuity Services

To stimulate revenue growth and market response, Boeing decided to develop the
787 Dreamliner. The 787 Dreamliner is not only a revolutionary aircraft, but it also
utilizes an unconventional supply chain intended to drastically reduce development
cost and time. However, despite significant management efforts and capital
investment, Boeing is currently facing a series of delays in its schedule for the maiden
flight and plane delivery to customers. This paper analyzes Boeing's rationale for the
787's unconventional supply chain, describes Boeing's challenges for managing this
supply chain, and highlights some key lessons for other manufacturers to consider
when designing their supply chains for new product development.
Acknowledgments:
We would like to thank William Schmidt of the Harvard Business School and one anonymous
reviewer for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Introduction
Since the U.S. government deregulated air travel in 1977,
more airlines have entered the market causing fierce
price competition. As airfares continued to decline, the
total number of U.S. passengers per year has risen from
approximately 240 million to 640 million from 1977 to
1999. At the same time, U.S. commercial aircraft
manufacturers have faced major competition from
European companies. After losing market share to
Airbus (owned by EADS) in the late 1990s, Boeing was
under pressure to decide between two basic
competitive strategies: reduce the costs (and the selling
prices) of existing types of aircraft or develop a new
aircraft to raise revenues through value creation.
In 2003, Boeing decided to focus on creating additional
value for its customers (airlines) and their passengers
by developing an innovative aircraft: the 787 Dreamliner.
(Throughout this paper, we shall use the term 787
Dreamliner, 787, and Dreamliner interchangeably.)
First, Boeing's value-creation strategy for the
passengers was to improve their travel experience
through redesigning the aircraft and offering significant
improvements in comfort. For instance, relative to
other aircrafts, over 50% of the primary structure of the
787 aircraft (including the fuselage and wing) would be
made of composite materials (Hawk, 2005). As
compared to the traditional material (aluminum) used in
airplane manufacturing, the composite material allows
for increased humidity and pressure to be maintained in

the passenger cabin, offering substantial improvement

to the flying experience. Also, the lightweight composite
materials enable the Dreamliner to take long-haul flights.
Consequently, the Dreamliner allows airlines to offer
direct/nonstop flights between any pair of cities without
layovers, which is preferred by most international
travelers (Hucko, 2007). Table 1 and Figure 1 (p. 75)
compare the 787 aircraft with other popular aircrafts.
Second, Boeing's value-creation strategy for its key
immediate customers (the airlines) and its end
customers (the passengers) was to improve flight
operational efficiency by providing big-jet ranges to
midsize airplanes while flying at approximately the same
speed (Mach 0.85).3 This efficiency would allow airlines
to offer economical nonstop flights to and from more
and smaller cities. In addition, with a capacity between
210 and 330 passengers and a range of up to 8,500
nautical miles, the 787 Dreamliner is designed to use
20% less fuel for comparable missions than today's
similarly sized airplanes. The cost-per-seat mile is
expected to be 10% lower than for any other aircraft.
Also, unlike the traditional aluminum fuselages that tend
to rust and fatigue, the 787's fuselages are based on
composite
materials,
which
reduce
airlines'
maintenance and replacement costs (Murray, 2007).
Table 2 provides a summary of the Dreamliner's benefits
for both the airlines and their passengers.
Due to the unique value that the 787 provides to the
airlines and their passengers, the number of orders
exceeded expectations. The Dreamliner is the fastest-

1. This research is supported by the UCLA Edward W. Carter Endowment Fund.

Supply Chain Forum

An International Journal

Vol. 10 - N2 - 2009

74

www.supplychain-forum.com

Managing New Product Development and Supply Chain Risks: The Boeing 787 Case

Table 1

Comparison of select Boeing and Airbus aircraft

largest aerospace and defense contractor in the world

(behind Lockheed Martin), and the single-largest
exporter in the United States. Sales in 2007 amounted to
$66.4 billion with a net income of $4.1 billion.

Figure 1

Dreamliner and A380 size comparison

selling plane in aviation history with carriers attracted

to its new largely composite design and innovative nextgeneration jet engines that will allow the wide-bodied
plane to fly further on less fuel. The Dreamliner program
has been considered a model endeavor combining novel
technology and production strategies. As of November
16, 2008, Boeing (Too early to talk about delay here.)
www.boeing.com) received orders from more than 50
airlines for a total of 895 Dreamliners. The
overwhelming response from the airline industry about
Boeing's 787 has forced Airbus to quickly redesign its
competitive wide-bodied jet, the A350, to make it even
wider, which was later re-released as the A350XWB as an
extra wide body (Wallace, 2006). Boeing is currently
the second-largest global aircraft manufacturer (behind
Airbus) in terms of revenue and deliveries (though
having received more orders than Airbus), the second-

Besides sales, the stock market responded favorably

when Boeing launched its game-changing 787
Dreamliner program in 2003. As shown in Figure 2,
between 2003 and 2007, Boeing's stock price increased
from around $30 a share to slightly over $100 a share.
However, Boeing announced a series of delays beginning
in late 2007 and the market has reacted negatively
(Figure 2). The negative market response is somewhat
expected as publicity of Boeing's supply chain problems
have become increasingly evident. As shown in Figure 2,
Airbus shared a similar fate after announcing a series of
delays for the delivery of its A380 in early 2006 (Raman
et al., 2008). Despite significant capital investment and
management effort, Boeing is currently facing continual
delays (for more than two years) in its schedule for the
maiden flight and plane delivery to customers as of this
writing (Sanders, 2009c).
After numerous failed
attempts to get its 787's composite rear fuselage
supplier back on track, Boeing finally decided to acquire
Vought's South Carolina facility at a cost of $1 billion on
July 8, 2009 (Sanders, 2009a).
This occurrence
motivated us to examine the underlying causes of
Boeing's challenges in managing its 787's delivery
schedule.
In this case study, we shall examine Boeing's rationale
for the 787's unconventional supply chain. The next
section presents our analysis of the underlying risks
associated with its supply chain. Then we describe
Boeing's risk mitigation strategies to expedite its
development and production processes. We conclude
with some key lessons for other manufacturers to
consider when designing their supply chains for new
product development.

2. Measured in terms of typical seat configuration. For example, the total number of seats can be higher if more space is allocated to the economy-class
cabin and less space to the first and business class cabins.
3. Other immediate customers include air freight logistics service providers such as Federal Express or DHL and aircraft operators such as Global Air.

Supply Chain Forum

An International Journal

Vol. 10 - N2 - 2009

75

www.supplychain-forum.com

Managing New Product Development and Supply Chain Risks: The Boeing 787 Case

Table 2

Dreamliner features with benefits for airlines and passengers

Figure 2

Historical stock prices of Boeing and Airbus compared to the S&P500

Supply Chain Forum

An International Journal

Vol. 10 - N2 - 2009

76

www.supplychain-forum.com

Managing New Product Development and Supply Chain Risks: The Boeing 787 Case

The 787 Dreamliner's unconventional

supply chain

Figure 3

A traditional supply chain for airplane

manufacturing

To reduce the 787's development time from six to four

years and development cost from $10 to $6 billion,
Boeing decided to develop and produce the Dreamliner
by using an unconventional supply chain new to the
aircraft manufacturing industry. The 787's supply chain
was envisioned to keep manufacturing and assembly
costs low, while spreading the financial risks of
development to Boeing's suppliers. Unlike the 737's
supply chain, which requires Boeing to play the
traditional role of a key manufacturer who assembles
different parts and subsystems produced by thousands
of suppliers (Figure 3), the 787's supply chain is based
on a tiered structure that would allow Boeing to foster
partnerships with approximately 50 tier-1 strategic
partners.
These strategic partners serve as
integrators who assemble different parts and
subsystems produced by tier-2 suppliers (Figure 4). The
787 supply chain depicted in Figure 4 resembles
Toyota's supply chain, which has enabled Toyota to
develop new cars with shorter development cycle times

Figure 4

Redesigned supply chain for the Dreamliner program

Table 3

Comparison of Boeing's strategy for its 737 and 787 programs

Supply Chain Forum

An International Journal

Vol. 10 - N2 - 2009

77

www.supplychain-forum.com

Managing New Product Development and Supply Chain Risks: The Boeing 787 Case

Figure 5

Dreamliner subassembly plan (Source:,www.Boeing.com)

and lower development costs (Tang, 1999). Table 3

highlights the key differences between the 737's supply
chain and the unconventional 787 supply chain. For
instance, under the 787's supply chain structure, these
tier-1 strategic partners are responsible for delivering
complete sections of the aircraft to Boeing, which would
allow Boeing to assemble these complete sections
within three days at its plant in Everett, Washington
(Figure 5). We now explain the relationale behind the
787s supply chain as highlighted is table 3.

subassembly. However, unless the supplier relationship

is managed correctly, reducing the supply base can
increase supply risks because of the reduced bargaining
power of the manufacturer (Tang, 1999). The rationale
behind this shift is to empower its strategic suppliers to
develop and produce different sections in parallel so as
to reduce the development time. Also, by shifting more
assembly operations to its strategic partners located in
different countries, there is a potential savings in
development cost as well (Figure 6).

Outsource more

Reduce financial risks

By outsourcing 70% of the development and production

activities under the 787 program, Boeing can shorten
the development time by leveraging suppliers' ability to
develop different parts at the same time. Also, Boeing
may be able to reduce the development cost of the 787
by exploiting suppliers' expertise.
As Boeing
outsourced more, communication and coordination
between Boeing and its suppliers became critical for
managing the progress of the 787 development program.
To facilitate the coordination and collaboration among
suppliers and Boeing, Boeing implemented a web-based
tool called Exostar that is intended to gain supply chain
visibility, improve control and integration of critical
business processes, and reduce development time and
cost Manufacturing Business Technology, 2007).

Under the 787 program, Boeing instituted a new risksharing contract under which no strategic suppliers will
receive payment for the development cost until Boeing
delivers its first 787 to its customers (slated to be ANA
airlines). This contract payment term was intended to
provide incentives for strategic partners to collaborate
and coordinate their development efforts. Although this
contract imposes certain financial risks for Boeing's
strategic suppliers if delivery deadlines are missed, they
are incentivized by being allowed to own their
intellectual property, which can then be licensed to
other companies in the future. Another incentive for the
strategic partners to accept this payment term is that it
allows them to increase their revenues (and potential
profits) by taking up the development and production of
the entire section of the plane instead of a small part of
the plane.

Reduce direct supply base, delegate more,

and focus more
To reduce development time and cost for the
Dreamliner, Boeing fostered strategic partnerships with
approximately 50 tier-1 suppliers who will design and
build entire sections of the plane and ship them to
Boeing. By reducing its direct supply base, Boeing could
focus more of its attention and resources on working
with tier-1 suppliers (pre-integration stages) rather than
with raw material procurement and early component

Supply Chain Forum

An International Journal

Vol. 10 - N2 - 2009

Increase production capacity without incurring

additional costs
Decentralizing the manufacturing process would allow
Boeing to outsource noncritical processes. The
intention is to reduce the capital investment for the 787
development program. Also, under the 787 supply
chain, Boeing needs only three days to assemble
complete sections of the Dreamliner at its plant. Relative

78

www.supplychain-forum.com

Managing New Product Development and Supply Chain Risks: The Boeing 787 Case

allow airlines to use two different types of engines

(Rolls-Royce and GE) interchangeably. Due to recent
technical difficulties and part incongruity, it would
take 15 days to change engines from one model to the
other instead of the intended 24 hours (Leeham Co.,
2005).

to the 737 supply chain, this drastic reduction in cycle

time would in turn increase Boeing's production
capacity without incurring additional investments.

The Dreamliner's supply chain risks

Although the 787 supply chain (Figure 4) has great
potential for reducing development time and cost, there
are various underlying supply chain risks. As described
in Sodhi and Tang (2009 a), there are many types of
supply chain risks ranging from technology to process
risks, from demand to supply risks, and from IT system
to labor risks. In this section, we shall present some of
the risks and actual events that caused major delays in
the Dreamliner's development program (Table 4).
The 787 Dreamliner involves the use of various
unproven technologies. Boeing encountered the
following technical problems that led to a series of
delays.
Composite Fuselage Safety Issues: The Dreamliner
contains 50% composite material (carbon fiberreinforced plastic), 15% aluminum, and 12% titanium.
The composite material has never been used on this
scale and many fear that creating an airplane with this
mixture of materials is not feasible. Also, lightning
strikes are a safety concern for wings made out of this
composite material because a lightning bolt would
potentially travel through the wing-skin fasteners
(Wallace, 2006).
Engine Interchangeability Issues: One of the key
benefits of the 787's modular design concept was to

Computer Network Security Issues: The current

configuration of electronics on the Dreamliner puts
passenger electronic entertainment on the same
computer network as the flight control system. This
raises a security concern for terrorist attacks (Zetter
2008).
Supply Risks
Boeing is relying on its tier-1 global strategic partners to
develop and build entire sections of the Dreamliner that
are based on unproven technology. Any break in the
supply chain can cause significant delays of the overall
production. In early September 2007, Boeing announced
a delay in the planned first flight of the Dreamliner citing
ongoing challenges including parts shortages and
remaining software and systems integration activities.
Even using Exostar, a web-based planning system, to
coordinate the supplier development activities,
coordination is only possible when accurate and timely
information is provided by different suppliers]For
example, one of the tier-1 suppliers, Vought, hired
Advanced Integration Technology (AIT) as a tier-2
supplier to serve as a system integrator without
informing Boeing. AIT is supposed to coordinate with

Table 4

Boeing's 787 supply chain risks and consequences

Supply Chain Forum

An International Journal

Vol. 10 - N2 - 2009

79

www.supplychain-forum.com

Managing New Product Development and Supply Chain Risks: The Boeing 787 Case

other tier-2 and tier-3 suppliers for Vought (Tang, 2007).

Additionally, due to cultural differences, some tier-2 or
tier-3 suppliers do not often enter accurate and timely
information into the Exostar system. As a result,various
tier-1 suppliers and Boeing were not aware of the delay
problems in a timely fashion, which makes it difficult for
Boeing to respond to these problems quickly.
Process Risks
The underlying design of the 787 supply chain is likely to
cause major delays because its efficiency depends on
the synchronized just-in-time deliveries of all major
sections from Boeing's tier-1 strategic partners. If the
delivery of a section is delayed, the delivery schedule of
the whole aircraft is delayed. Unless Boeing keeps some
safety stocks of different complete sections, it is likely
that Boeing will face late delivery. Also, under the risksharing contract, none of the strategic partners will get
paid until the first completed plane is certified for flight.
As strategic partners recognize the potential of being
penalized unfairly if they complete their tasks before
other suppliers, the risk-sharing contract payment may
actually entice these strategic partners to work slower,
which undermines the original intent of the risk-sharing
contract (Kwon et al., 2009).
Management Risks
As Boeing used an unconventional supply chain
structure to develop and build its Dreamliner, it is
essential for Boeing to assemble a leadership team that
includes some members who have a proven supply
chain management record with expertise to prevent and
anticipate certain risks as well as to develop
contingency plans to mitigate the impact of different
types of risks. However, Boeing's original leadership
team for the 787 program did not include members with

expertise on supply chain risk management. Without the

requisite skills to manage an unconventional supply
chain, Boeing was undertaking a huge managerial risk in
uncharted waters.
Labor Risks
As Boeing increased its outsourcing effort, Boeing
workers became concerned about their job security.
Their concerns resulted in a strike by more than 25,000
Boeing employees starting in September 2008. The
effects of the worker strike were also felt by Boeing's
strategic partners. For example, anticipating that the
strike at Boeing would trigger order cancellations and
delivery delay of certain Boeing aircrafts, Spirit
Aerosystems, a key supplier of Boeing, reduced its work
week for employees who develop and manufacture
various Boeing aircrafts. This reduced work schedule
could potentially delay the delivery schedule of certain
fuselage parts for the 787 (Rigby & Hepher, 2008).
Demand Risks
As Boeing announced a series of delays, some
customers lost their confidence in Boeing's aircraft
development capability. In addition, there is a growing
concern about the fact that the first 787s are overweight
by about 8%, or 2.2 metric tons, which can lead to a 15%
reduction in range (Norris, 2009). In response to
Boeing's production and delivery delays and the doubt
about 787's long range capability, some customers have
begun canceling orders for the Dreamliner or migrating
towards leasing contracts instead of purchasing the
airplane outright. As of July 2009, the orders for the
Dreamliner have been reduced from 895 (reported in
November 2008) to 850 (reported in July 2009) (see
Sanders, 2009b, for details).

Table 5

Boeing's reactive risk mitigation strategies

Supply Chain Forum

An International Journal

Vol. 10 - N2 - 2009

80

www.supplychain-forum.com

Managing New Product Development and Supply Chain Risks: The Boeing 787 Case

Boeing's reactive risk mitigation strategy

To manage various disruptions as presented earlier, we
now present Boeing's reactive response for reducing the
negative impact of the current problems and for
avoiding further complications resulting in additional
delays (Table 5).
To improve the safety of its composite fuselage, Boeing
is redesigning its fuselage by using additional material
to strengthen the wing structure; however, this
additional material will increase the aircraft's overall
weight. Boeing management has continued to assure its
customers that it will work diligently to reduce the
weight of the final version of the plane. Boeing is
redesigning its installation process with the hope of
reducing its changeover time from one engine model to
the other. Finally, to ensure that the computer network
is secure, a proper design is being required that allows
for the separation of the navigation computer systems
from the passenger electronic entertainment system.
Mitigating Supply Risks
After realizing that some tier-1 strategic partners did not
have the know-how to develop different sections of the
aircraft or experience in managing their tier-2 suppliers
to develop the requisite components for the sections,
Boeing recognized the need to regain control of the
development process of the 787. For instance, knowing
that Vought Aircraft Industries was the weakest link in
the Boeing's 787 supply chain, Boeing acquired one unit
of Vought in 2008 and then another unit in 2009 (Ray,
2008; Sanders, 2009a). These two acquisitions provide
Boeing direct control of these two units of Vought and
their tier-2 suppliers for the fuselage development.
Further, as a result of continued production delays,
some of Boeing's suppliers were in jeopardy of facing
massive profit losses, which put completion of the entire
Dreamliner program at risk. For example, in response to
threats of work stoppage, Boeing paid its tier-1 strategic
partner Spirit Aerosystems approximately $125 million
in 2008 to ensure that this partner continued its vital
operations, Ray 2008).
Mitigating Process Risks
As a response to suppliers' inability to meet production
deadlines, Boeing decided that it must send key
personnel to sites across the globe to fill suppliers'
management vacuum and address production issues in
person. This proved to be an expensive endeavor as
personnel was pulled from responsibilities on-site at
Boeing to address supply and manufacturing issues at
the sites of their outsourced partners. The strategy of
relying on suppliers for subassembly proved to be too
risky for Boeing in certain circumstances and resulted in
Boeing having to perform the work themselves. For
instance, Boeing sent hundreds of its engineers to the
sites of various tier-1, tier-2, or tier-3 suppliers
worldwide to solve various technical problems that
appeared to be the root cause of the delay in the 787's
development. Ultimately, Boeing had to redesign the
entire aircraft subassembly process (Gunsalus, 2007).

Supply Chain Forum

An International Journal

Vol. 10 - N2 - 2009

While this hands-on approach would certainly help the

process, it is very costly and time consuming, which
defeats the underlying intents of the 787's redesigned
supply chain as described earlier.
Mitigating Management Risks
To restore customers' confidence about Boeing's aircraft
development capability and to reduce any further
delays, Boeing recognized the need to bring in someone
with a proven record of supply chain management
expertise. In response, the original 787 program
director, Mike Bair (with proven marketing expertise),
was replaced by Patrick Shanahan, who had proven
expertise in supply chain management. Shanahan is
now responsible for coordination of all activities for
Boeing's major plane families, which includes the
Dreamliner. Moreover, Boeing has changed it top
leadership by replacing its interim CEO, James Bell, with
Jim McNerney in 2005.
Mitigating Labor Risks
To bring about an end to the strike after two months of
shutdown, Boeing made concessions that would give
workers a 15% wage boost over four years. On the key
issue of job security, which had been the major
impediment to reaching an agreement, Boeing agreed to
limit the amount of work that outside vendors could
perform. Therefore, Boeing's concept of outsourcing a
significant amount of work to global partners could be
endangered and production costs could eventually rise.
In response to the wage increases and limits in
outsourcing promised by Boeing, the machinists union
conceded to withdraw charges filed with the
Department of Labor regarding allegations of unfair
bargaining practices at Boeing (Gates, 2008).
Mitigating Demand (Customer) Risks
As customers had begun to cancel their 787 orders and
as the company's capability of developing the 787 was
put into question, Boeing developed the following
mitigation strategies. First, as a way to compensate its
customers' potential loss due to the late deliveries of
their orders, Boeing is supplying replacement aircrafts
(new 737 or 747) to various concerned airlines such as
Virgin Atlantic (Lunsford October 11, 2007 ; Crown,
2008). Second, to restore Boeing's public image, Boeing
has improved its communication by sharing its progress
updates on its website.
In addition, Boeing is
conducting a publicity campaign to promote the
superior technology of the 787 and the overall value that
the airplane will offer to airlines and passengers (Crown,
2008).

Boeing's potential proactive risk mitigation

strategies
As Boeing makes its best effort to restore confidence in
its capability of developing innovative aircrafts such as
the Dreamliner, there are certain risk mitigation
strategies that Boeing could have embarked on at the
outset of the program to better manage potential risks
proactively (Table 6).

81

www.supplychain-forum.com

Managing New Product Development and Supply Chain Risks: The Boeing 787 Case

Table 6

Alternative strategies for mitigating program risks

Improve Supply Chain Visibility

As described earlier, Boeing's supply risk was caused by
the lack of supply chain visibility. Without accurate and
timely information about the supply chain structure and
the development progress at each supplier's site, the
value of Exostar has been compromised significantly. To
improve information accuracy, Boeing should have
required that all strategic partners and suppliers
provide all information imbedded in the supply chain
relationships instead of relying on alerts generated from
the program only after they were directly affected. Also,
Boeing should provide incentives for all suppliers to use
Exostar to communicate accurate information in a
timely manner.
Improve Strategic Supplier Section Process and
Relationships
Spending more effort on evaluating each supplier's
technical capability and supply chain management
expertise for developing and manufacturing a particular
section of the Dreamliner would have enabled Boeing to
select more capable tier-1 strategic suppliers, which
could avoid or reduce potential delays caused by
inexperienced tier-1 suppliers. Also, Boeing should
require that they participate in the tier-1 partner's
vetting process of tier-2 (or tier-3) suppliers. The
additional effort of properly vetting key suppliers would
certainly enhance communication and coordination and
reduce the risks of potential delays, which would in turn
reduce the development time and cost (Lunsford, 2007).
Modify the Risk-Sharing Contract
Although the delayed payment term associated with the
risk-sharing contract was intended to reduce Boeing's
financial risk, it did not provide proper incentives for
tier-1 suppliers to complete their tasks early. If some
strategic partners are incapable of developing their
sections according to the plan schedule, the entire
development schedule is pushed back. As a result of

Supply Chain Forum

An International Journal

Vol. 10 - N2 - 2009

these delays, Boeing incurred millions of dollars in

penalties that it had to pay out to its customers (West,
2007). To properly align the incentives among all
strategic partners, Boeing should have structured the
contracts with reward (penalty) for on-time (late)
delivery (Kwon et al., 2009).
Proactive Management Team
Boeing should have chosen the right people for the job
at the outset of the program, allowing them to anticipate
and avoid the risks associated with its novel supply
chain structure. Also, identifying the sources of
potential problems and having the right person (or
team) in place would mitigate many of the risks and
allow Boeing to respond more quickly and effectively
when problems occurred. For example, Boeing could
have either avoided or anticipated various types of
supply chain risks as described in Section 3 had they
appointed persons with proven
supply chain
management expertise to serve on the original
leadership team. By having a leadership team with all
requisite skills, Boeing would have had the requisite
expertise and authority to respond to the delay
problems more effectively.
Proactive Labor Relationship Management
Dissatisfaction among Boeing's machinists was caused
by Boeing's strategy to increase its outsourced
operations to external suppliers. Had the union's
general disapproval of Boeing's outsourcing strategy
been taken into account, Boeing may not have decided
to outsource 70% of its tasks. Even if this outsourcing
strategy was justified financially, Boeing could have
managed its labor relationship proactively by discussing
the strategy, by offering job assurances, and by
obtaining buy-in from unions. This proactive labor
relationship management would have created a more
mutually beneficial partnership, which could have
avoided the labor strikes.

82

www.supplychain-forum.com

Managing New Product Development and Supply Chain Risks: The Boeing 787 Case

Improving Supply Chain Visibility to Facilitate

Coordination and Collaboration

Proactive Customer Relationship Management

Recognizing the risks associated with innovative
product development, proactive customer relationship
management is critical to help customers set proper
expectations when placing their orders.
Better
communication with customers throughout the
development process can enable a company to manage
customers' perceptions throughout the entire product
development process. Setting proper expectations
about the delivery schedules of its 787 Dreamliner may
have encouraged the airlines to manage their aircraft
replacement schedule differently, say order more 737s
and 747s and fewer 787s. Without setting an aggressive
delivery schedule to its customers, it was plausible for
Boeing to reduce the penalty caused by the delayed
delivery schedule. Through continuous engagement
and open communication about the challenges and
Boeing's contingency plans, it would have been
plausible for Boeing to manage its customers'
perception and its reputation better.

Afterthoughts
By examining the inherent risks associated with
Boeing's supply chain and by analyzing Boeing's
reactive mitigation strategies presented earlier, we have
developed the following insights that other
manufacturers may consider when managing their
supply chains for efficient new product development.
Assembling a Leadership Team with Requisite
Expertise
On the surface, it appears that Boeing's fundamental
problem was caused by its attempts to simultaneously
take on too many drastic changes. These changes
include unproven technology, unconventional supply
chains, unproven supplier's capability to take on new
roles and responsibilities, and unproven IT coordination
systems. However, one plausible reason for Boeing to
take on so many drastic changes may be because the
787 leadership team underestimated the risks
associated with all these changes. Had Boeing
constructed a multi-disciplinary team with expertise to
identify and evaluate various supply chain risks, it might
have been possible for Boeing to anticipate and avoid
potential risks, and to develop proactive mitigation
strategies and contingency plans to reduce the impact
of various supply chain disruptions.
Obtaining Internal Support Proactively
Partnerships between management and labor are
essential for smooth operations for companies to
implement any new initiatives including new product
development programs. Although their interests are
often misaligned, better communication of business
strategies with union workers is a proactive step
towards avoiding costly worker strikes. Also, aligning
the incentives for both parties proactively is more likely
to reduce potential internal disruptions down the road.

Supply Chain Forum

An International Journal

Vol. 10 - N2 - 2009

Besides the need to perform due diligence in key

supplier selection to ensure that the selected supplier
has the requisite capability and the commitment for
success, a company should consider cultivating
stronger commitment in exchange for accurate
information in a timely manner. Overly relying on IT
communication is highly risky when managing a new
project. To mitigate the risks caused by partners further
upstream or downstream, companies should strive to
gain complete visibility of the entire supply chain.
Having clear supply chain visibility would enhance the
capability for a company to take corrective action more
quickly, which is more likely to reduce the negative
impact of a disruption along the supply chain. See Sodhi
and Tang (2009b) for a discussion of the importance of
timely response to mitigate the negative effects of
supply chain disruptions.
Proactive Management of Customer Expectation and
Perception
Due to the inherent risks associated with new product
development, it is critical for a company to help its
customers set proper expectations proactively,
especially regarding the potential delay caused by
various types of risks as highlighted in Table 3. Setting
proper expectations at the outset would reduce
potential customer dissatisfaction down the road.
During the development phase, it is advisable for the
company to maintain open and honest communication
with its customers regarding the actual progress,
technical challenges, and corrective measures. Such
efforts would possibly gain customer trust, which would
improve their loyalty in the long run.

Conclusion
Boeing's Dreamliner program involves dramatic shifts in
supply chain strategy from traditional methods used in
the aerospace industry. In addition, Boeing boasted
about its novel manufacturing techniques and its
technological marvels. Such dramatic shifts from
convention
involve
significant
potential
for
encountering risks throughout the process. Boeing's
ongoing issues with meeting delivery deadlines are a
direct result of its decision to make drastic changes in
the design, the development process, and the supply
chain associated with the Dreamliner program
simultaneously without having the proper management
team in place. Further, this team did not proactively
assess the risks that were later realized and did not
develop coherent strategies for effectively mitigating
them. Although it may be impossible to identify all
potential risks and create contingency plans for all
eventualities before a project begins, Boeing could have
done many things differently. It is instructive for
managers in any industry to view the issues that Boeing
faced and analyze how these issues were handled so
that they can learn from mistakes that were made before
engaging in similar supply chain restructuring.

83

www.supplychain-forum.com

Managing New Product Development and Supply Chain Risks: The Boeing 787 Case

Raman, A., Schmidt, C., & Gaul, V. (2008). Airbus A380Turbulence ahead Harvard Business School Case, N9-609-041.

References
Boeing website www.boeing.com.
Crown, J. (2008, April 4). Will Boeing pay for delays? Spiegel
Online
International.
Retrieved
May
2009
from
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,545365,00.
html.
Dyer, J., & Ouchi, W. (1993). Japanese style business
partnerships: Giving companies a competitive edge. Sloan
Management Review, 35(1), 51-63.
Gates, D. (2008, Nov. 2). Boeing strike ends: Machinists back on
the job Sunday. Seattle Times. Retrieved April 2009 from
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008340022
_webmachinists02m.html.
Gunsalus, J. (2007, Dec 11). Boeing sticks to revised 787
Dreamliner schedule. Bloomberg Press. Retrieved April 2009
from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103
&sid=aqgUCtUslurM&refer=us.

Ray, S. (2008, March 28). Boeing buys Vought Venture to stem

delays on 787. Bloomberg Press. Retrieved April 2009 from
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aw
4dIEC3nhGs&refer=news.
Rigby, B., & Hepher, T. (2008, Sept.). Boeing strike impact to be
felt globally. Reuters.
Retrieved July 22, 2009, from
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSN052945182008
0908.
Sanders, P. (2009a, July 8). Boeing sets deal to buy a Dreamliner
plant. Wall Street Journal.
Sanders, P. (2009b, July 2). Boeing tightens its grip on
Dreamliner production. Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
Sanders, P. (2009c, July 23). Boeing yet to clear Dreamliner's
takeoff. Wall Street Journal, p. B3.

Hawk, J. (2005, May).The Boeing 787-Dreamliner: More than an

airplane. Retrieved April 2009 from http://www.aiaa.org/events/
aners/Presentations/ANERS-Hawk.pdf.

Sodhi, M., & Tang, C. S. (2009a). Managing supply chain

disruption via time-based risk management. In T. Wu & J.
Blackhurst (eds.), Managing supply chain risk and vulnerability:
Tools and methods for supply chain decision makers. New York:
Springer.

Hucko, C. (2007, April 28). Airbus A380 vs. Boeing 787: Poll
reveals that passengers prefer a smaller plane. Suite101.
Retrieved May 2009 from
http://airplanes.suite101.com/article.cfm/airbus_a380_vs_boei
ng_787.

Sodhi, M., & Tang, C. S. (2009b). Supply chain risk management.

]]In J. J. Cochran, L. A. Cox, P. Keskinocak, J. P. Kharoufeh, & J.
C. Smith (eds.), Encyclopedia of operations research and
management science. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons.

Kwon, D., Lippman, S. A., McCardle, K., & Tang, C. S. (2009).

Time-based contracts with delayed payments. Working paper.
Los Angeles: UCLA Anderson School.
Leeham Co. (2005, July 18). 787 is not meeting 24-hour engine
change promo, lessor says. Leeham Co. LLC. Retrieved May
2009 from http://www.leeham.net/filelib/SCOTTSCOLUMN
071805.pdf.
Lunsford, J. (2007, Oct 11). Boeing, in embarrassing setback,
says 787 Dreamliner will be delayed. The Wall Street Journal,
pp. A1, A16.
Lunsford, J. (2007, Oct 17). Boeing replaces head of 787
Dreamliner program. The Wall Street Journal.
Manufacturing Business Technology, (2007, March 1). Boeing
787 program flying smoothly with Exostar collaboration
engine,
Manufacturing
Business
Technology.
h t t p : / / w w w. m b t m a g . c o m / a r t i c l e / 1 9 2 1 9 8 Boeing_787_program_flying_smoothly_with_Exostar_collabora
tion_engine.php
Murray, C. (2007, June 4). Boeing 787 Dreamliner rolls out
smoother ride with gust suppression. Design News. Retrieved
April 2009 from http://www.designnews.com/article/439Boeing_787_Dreamliner_Rolls_Out_Smoother_Ride_with_Gust
_Suppression.php.

Tang, C. S. (1999). The supplier relationship map, International

Journal of Logistics, 2(1), 39-56.
Tang, C. S. (2007). Boeing's 787 supply chain: A dream or a
nightmare? Unpublished paper. Los Angeles: UCLA Anderson
School.
Wallace, J. (2006, July 18). Airbus unveils widebody, says A350
XWB will top 787 and 777. SeattleP-I. Retrieved April 2009 from
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/277877_airshow18.html.
Wallace, J. (2006, July 12). Aerospace notebook: Lightning a
weighty issue for the 787. Seattle P-I. Retrieved April 2009 from
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/277220_air12.html.
West, K. (2007, Dec. 12). Boeing 787 program not out of woods.
MSNBC.
Wikipedia. (2009). List of Boeing 787 orders. Retrieved May
2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_787_
orders.
Zetter, K. (2008, Jan. 8). FAA: Boeing's new 787 may be
vulnerable to hacker attack. Wired. Retrieved May 2009 from
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/01/dreamli
ner_security.

Norris, G. (2009, May 6). 787s move along, weight problems

persist.
Aviation
Daily.
RetrievedMay
2009
from
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?c
hannel=aviationdaily&id=news/787NEW05059.xml.

Supply Chain Forum

An International Journal

Vol. 10 - N2 - 2009

84

www.supplychain-forum.com

About the authors

Dr Christopher S. Tang is Edward W. Carter Professor of Business Administration at the UCLA Anderson School. In addition to his academic
appointment at UCLA for over 20 years, he has served many roles at the UCLA Anderson School including Senior Associate Dean, Department Chair, and
Center Director. Between 2000 and 2004, he served as Dean of National University of Singapore business school as well as the Senior Advisor to the
President at the National University of Singapore. Chris has extensive teaching, research, and consulting experience in the areas of Supply Chain
Management and Retailing. In addition to winning 5 different teaching awards, he has published 3 books, over 80 research articles in various leading
international academic journals, and articles in Wall Street Journal and Financial Times. Moreover, he has taught various executive programs, served on
15 editorial boards including Management Science, Operations Research, Production and Operations Management, and advised clients throughout United
States, Europe and Asia. Dr. Tang received his B.Sc. (First class honors) from Kings College, University of London, M.A., M.Phil, and PhD from Yale
University.
Joshua Zimmerman attained a BS in Biochemistry and Cell Biology from UCSD (University of California, San Diego) in 2000, an MBA from UCLA
Anderson School in 2009, and is currently working towards finishing an MS in Cell and Molecular Biology. He has worked as a laboratory technician and
manager in the Neuromedical Department at the UCSD HIV Neurobehavioral Research Center (HNRC) in San Diego where he contributed to research
studies of how the brain and immune system function, and how they are affected by HIV disease. Prior to achieving his MBA, he was a laboratory
manager in the Bioassay Department at Vaxgen, a South San Francisco biopharmaceutical company, which developed and manufactured HIV and
anthrax vaccines. He currently works at Amgen in Thousand Oaks, CA as an operations manager in the Operations Risk Management Department,
helping to develop corporate risk management strategies for clinical and commercial operational sites.

COMMENTS ON THE CASE STUDY

James I. Nelson M.S.
MBCP, CORP

The analysis and write-up of the

Boeing 787 case study by
Christopher S. Tang and Joshua D.
Zimmerman reflects a consistent
and high quality academic analysis
of undertakings in the market
place.
This case study analyzes the errors,
omissions, mistakes that have
been made by an organization
seeking to bring goods and
services to market in an expedited
manner. This is not a unique
situation and we can extrapolate
and learn from both the business
undertakings of Boeing 787
project and the Supply Chain case
study of how to improve and avoid
repeating many of these errors.
Boeing applied some good
concepts and ideas in an effort to
bring the 787 Dreamliner to
market. They assessed and applied
strategies that have worked in
other industries in an effort to
respond to pressures and dynamics
in the market place. Some of
these concepts worked well and
others were disappointing.
The concept of using new
materials in the aircraft and
leveraging a Tier 1 supplier
support system borrowed from the

Supply Chain Forum

An International Journal

automobile industry has inherent

risks in concept versus application.
The realities of cutting edge
design and real world application
resulted in additional resource
commitment by Boeing.
Expecting Tier 1 suppliers to
naturally align with Boeing
expectations
was
clearly
unrealistic. Engineering design
challenges and resolutions clearly
required additional unplanned
resources and escalated costs for
the overall project.
What we have seen is that this
trend practiced by Boeing is not
unique. We have seen a trend by
many organizations to manage
expenses in response to the
economic crisis.

Many organizations fail to take

the time to establish a solid
understanding of the potential
downside impacts associated with
the performance problems of
vendors or contractors in the
supply chain.
This is not as
complex and challenging as
presented. Discussions on the
nature of 'win-win' are not always
as clear as the controlling
organization views them.
Organizations also fail to consider
the impacts of missing customer
commitments, managing brand
and reputation issues and also
being sensitive to the many
stakeholder focus areas and
concerns.

This is not a new phenomenon

when we consider the large
number of western companies
that have chosen to outsource
key tasks, services and activities to
emerging markets and lower cost
countries in an effort to remain
competitive.

The costs of a failure, setback or

disruption are geometrically more
costly than having a solid risk
management and response and
recovery capability in place. The
contingency planning or what if
capabilities of an organization
often can be the difference
between a successful project or
the costly reactive efforts required
to salvage a project.

We have also seen many

companies surge forward to enact
and manage projects with limited
attention paid to the potential
impacts that can be reasonably
identified by solid risk assessment
processes.

Transferring risk and reward is a

practice that is often attempted
but frequently misunderstood.
This cannot be accomplished by a
series of meetings in the board
room of a major organization.
This is not a trend or new concept.

Vol. 10 - N2 - 2009

85

www.supplychain-forum.com

This is a very complex and iterative

process requiring attention from
key managers on both sides to
understand, negotiate and accept
risk and reward situations.
It may be necessary to also have
traditional purchaser- supplier
relationships in specific cases in
the supply chain. This may be very
germane to smaller, boutique or
specialty services or product
suppliers. In short- one size does
not fit all- no matter how much
pressure is applied!
This requires dialogue. Creating an
environment that breeds success
can only be accomplished by
candid
and
aggressive
communication. Be prepared to
manage
exceptions
where
cultures, size, cash flow and
unique services may clash.
The key factor is establishing and
embedding
a
culture
of
organizational resilience in al
organizations.
This is an
organizational culture where all
levels of the organization have
input to the success if the
organization's undertakings. This
is a sense of change that is
promulgated
from
top
management but is accomplished
by the managers and workers in
the firm. Again, this may not apply
to all supplier organizations.

Supply Chain Forum

An International Journal

The culture of resilience is both

internal and external. The job
security issues at the forefront of
the Boeing machinist union is
shared
by
many
other
constituencies.
Lessons learned from the Asian
tsunamis and the US 2006 Gulf
Coast
disasters
should
be
considered by all organizations.
Significant community wide,
regional or industry challenges
need to be recognized, assessed
and addressed at the outset of the
project
and
evaluated
for
potential risks.
The cost of a project delay, outage,
setbacks, mistakes or disasters
have significant impacts on the
organization, the employees, their
families, key suppliers and
contractors and the health of the
community.
Sure Boeing made some mistakes
as analyzed by Christopher S. Tang
and Joshua D. Zimmerman. Boeing
also attempted to become more
efficient and competitive. Boeing
pushed
the
envelope
and
continued to be creative and
address challenges in the industry.
They may have just applied a
bureaucratic approach to the 787
Dreamliner project which may
have undermined the strategic
intent of the project structure.

Vol. 10 - N2 - 2009

86

The ideas and intent ion were all

commendable. The challenge is
there was a lack of understanding
of the importance of both
understanding and managing the
complexities of the supply chain
and the overall inherent risks of a
mismanaged supply chain.
Organizations need to be more
resilient, nimble and responsive in
this global market. This can only
be achieved by understanding
what has worked and what has
been lacking. Understanding the
strengths of the key suppliers and
their imperatives and limitations is
a solid first step to resilient,
successful organizations.
Jim Nelson is the President of
Business Continuity Services, Inc.,
(www.BusinessContinuitySvcs.com)
a consulting company specializing
in business continuity management,
crisis management, data center
management, and supply chain
risk mitigation. Jim is also the
Chairperson of The International
Consortium for Organizational
Resilience, (www.theICOR.org) a
non-profit
education
and
credentialing organization in
the disciplines that support
organizational resilience.
Jim can be contacted at
Jim@Business ContinuitySvcs.com
or jnelson@ theicor.org.

www.supplychain-forum.com

Copyright of Supply Chain Forum: International Journal is the property of BEM Bordeaux Management School
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.