Sarah Foster
Blog Post #3 – Connection to Week 4: Planning and
Managing Inventories in a Supply Chain
Boeing – Lessons
Learned from the Aerospace Fastener Shortage
I find it fascinating that even the most established,
successful companies can manage to make a large-scale mistakes with significant
consequences. Boeing made one such
mistake about eight years ago when its inventory of fasteners was
depleted. The following articles shed
light on this event:
“Boeing: The Fight for Fasteners,”
University of Michigan, Case 1-428-787, November 17, 2009, http://www.yoest.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Boeing-Fastener-Case-Study.pdf.
Ravi Anupindi, “Case Study: Boeing’s
Dreamliner,” Financial Times, October
10, 2011, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a7d38332-ef70-11e0-941e-00144feab49a.html#axzz3D47SRRHU.
Boeing was scheduled to deliver its 787 Dreamliner to customers
in 2008; however, due to an industry-wide shortage of aerospace fasteners,
deliveries were delayed for two years, “a delay of this magnitude was
unparalleled in the history of Boeing commercial airplane development.”[1]
Demand for aircrafts significantly dropped post September
11, 2001. During this downturn, “the
fastener industry quickly consolidated.” [2]
The consolidated fastener manufacturers (manufacturers that provided the
majority of Boeing’s fasteners) reduced capacity and their workforce, which
resulted in closed plants. Starting in
2004, however, the aircraft industry began to grow again; between 2004 and
2005, orders for Boeing airplanes increased over 200 percent.
Boeing did have an efficient inventory management system
that implemented many of the best practices discussed in Managing Inventory. For example, the inventory model Boeing chose
to utilize for 737 floor beam production was a consumption based ordering
system call Min/Max; it provided daily information that consisted of “current
inventory levels, average monthly usage, and the minimum/maximum inventory
levels to be maintained for each 737 floor beam part within the Boeing
factory.” The Min/Max’s daily information and updates reduced inventory by more
than 300 million in one year.[3] The inventory system was such a success that
it was implemented for fasteners in the year 2000. “Administrative changes to
fastener purchase orders were reduced from four times to once per year; this
saved $900 million in administrative labor coast annually per part.”[4]
Boeing traditionally procured around 50 percent of all
fasteners; however, the 787 supply chain would utilize partners to procure up
to 80 percent of fasteners. Boeing did not predict the industry-wide fastener
shortage; they didn’t realize it was going to be a huge issue until other
aerospace companies began calling Boeing requesting fasteners. I personally was
very surprised by this. One would think that a company that already had such
effective inventory management practices would have anticipated a major supply
shortage. Given this mistake happened after Boeing reduced its procurement of
fasteners, a lesson learned from this case would be any time a company makes a
change in its supply chain, lots of analysis should be done to address potential
unintended consequences.
After the shortage, an investigation of the problem provided
data that “proved that there were fundamental ordering and scheduling problems
in the industry.”[5] Also,
Min/Max was only one of Boeing’s ordering methods, and the variation resulted
in different pricing structures.[6] Boeing worked to develop a new system, the
Fastener Procurement Model (FPM), which “would use a central purchasing system
to manage orders and inventory… it would also enable Boeing to negotiate a price
directly with fastener makers to ensure more favorable pricing, both for itself
and its partners.”[7]
One best practice that is continuously mentioned throughout
this semester’s reading is having all stakeholders present at inventory and
forecasting meetings. It seems that
there were some major miscommunications between Boeing and fastener
suppliers. According to a Financial Times article, “Boeing had
overlooked how important distributors were to the supply chain; the aircraft
maker realized it had to consider more partners with planning FPM [Fastener
Procurement Model].”[8] This issue came up in the Bayonne case; the
sales force was not informed when orders would be late so they could not
properly communicate with customers.
Also, daily production meetings at Bayonne did not include sales, which
further contributed to the lack of information sharing.
Question to Consider:
- The fastener shortage was industry-wide. Would Boeing benefit from holding inventory forecasting meetings with other companies in the industry to prevent future potential shortages?
[1] “Boeing: The Fight for Fasteners,” University of
Michigan, Case 1-428-787, November 17, 2009, http://www.yoest.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Boeing-Fastener-Case-Study.pdf.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[5] “Boeing: The Fight for Fasteners,” University of Michigan,
Case 1-428-787, November 17, 2009, http://www.yoest.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Boeing-Fastener-Case-Study.pdf.
[6]
Ibid.
[7] Ravi Anupindi, “Case Study: Boeing’s Dreamliner,” Financial Times, October 10, 2011, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a7d38332-ef70-11e0-941e-00144feab49a.html#axzz3D47SRRHU.
[8] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.