Boeing Boundary SpanningTechnologies. A company built to last.

1. Boeing Boundary SpanningTechnologies. A company built to last. OB 616 Managing Technology Mary-Ann Pomerleau, Ed.D, Course Chair Jackie Callas, Adjunct Faculty Marcel Schwantes, Mentor Huebner, Mark G. Kaplan May, 2003

2. Thesis Statement Simplistic solutions to embracing technology have little or no impact in today’s larger organizations. The more complex the system by which information needs to flow, the more challenging the technological process to affect change and development becomes. We will attempt to dissect the complexity of one of Boeing’s largest and most successful Teams – The Macon Beam Team, and showcase a pioneering team model of Boundary Spanning Technology practices already into place. Hopefully, through our case study of the C-17 Macon project, we can distinguish this method as the way to improve technology management for the future.

3. Statement of Rationale Cohort became intrigued about how a company the size of Boeing, and a project the scope of the C-17 Project, transformed the culture, product outputs and profitability through a re-engineering of Boundary Spanning Methodologies and a refocusing on core competencies through various means of core technologies. C-17 Globemaster III

4. THE CHALLENGE The Macon Team needed to first discover its core competencies and use innovation and technology to reach its stated goals and objectives. C-17 Production Facility

5. Macon Beam Team: Defining The Project • Increase efficiencies across all team and process boundaries. • To produce the worlds largest most efficient aircraft while reducing costs and resources. • Design and implement communication processes via technology and face to face inputs. • Reduce floor space. • Improve use of factory resources. • Labor, tools, utilities, materials • Uncover core competencies and develop delivery systems to maximize outputs. • KEY POINT: the interaction of the Macon Beam Team occurred through Boundary Spanning Units.

6. The Boundary Spanning Units

7. Matrix of Assembly Systems • WHAT IS THE MATRIX AND HOW WAS IT USED? • The intent of the matrix was to determine efficiencies and cost effectiveness of various systems in building C-17 wing components. • The matrix included studies on the following: • Manual fabrication and part placement. • Tooling needs to facilitate production. • Self locating part jigs to expedite placement of assemblies and sub assemblies. • Robotic usage-the installation and deployment of robots to facilitate wing and assembly production. • The matrix included man hour impact, part costs, facilities usage, (including required floor space for each process) and other criteria to determine how core competencies could be exploited and non core competencies could be outsourced or dropped altogether. • HOW WAS ALL THIS KNOWLEDGE PROCESSED INTERNALLY?

8. Boundary Spanning Communication and Knowledge Transfer • Creation of a “think tank” including team leaders who would facilitate a strategic change initiative and flow information efficiently between production units. • Internal and external focus groups, surveys and military feedback were employed.  • Information data base and knowledge management methods applied.  • Focus was not just the capture of information but reusability.  It became useful for all aspects of present processes and future projects.  • Macon Team now have a resource to tap and build onto. 

9. Alignment of Values and Technology • Strategic goal of Boeing’s Macon Beam Team • “Zero-Defect Standard” utilizing the High Performance Work Organization (HPWO) • Zero Defects = Perfect Quality + Maximum Efficiency + Total Customer Satisfaction = Profitable Growth. • Be an ethical and respected supplier of structural assemblies. • Be a best-value provider of assembly products. • Be a respected civic member of the community. • To have long-term partnerships with suppliers. • To delight customers.

10. Personal Reflections Mark’s Reflection This project has us looking at teams that transformed from work groups to high performance teams.  The distinction is the high performance team looks out for others well being as well as a work product.  Everything I am looking at regarding Boeing pointed to that transformation.  This is also how I am experiencing our own growth and development.  Collectively, I am much smarter, faster and better informed inside our community of practice. 

11. Personal Reflections Marcel’s Reflection This exercise helped me to understand the impact and demands on teams to not learn from their own community of practice, but to DELIVER on expectations of that community. As a team of three, we set goals most appropriately and determined the scope of work needed to fulfill this assignment, much in the same manner of the people we studied. Through our struggles to fulfill the criteria of this assignment, the defining moment came at a point where a cross structure (so no one is left without access to support or accountability) was not met and expectations weakened, making facilitation and movement in the project, per the syllabus, that much more difficult.

12. Personal Reflections Mentor’s Reflection What struck me about this assignment was how every aspect of what we've learned (and had to learn) came into play.  Leadership, negotiations, coaching/teaching, conflict resolution,  diversity, the recognition of (and compensation for) individual strengths...and weaknesses.  Egos had to be checked at the door and paradigms had to be shifted!  I was not the most computer literate fellow when this began...I still am not, but what I've had to learn through the course of this class has at least doubled what I knew when I walked in...possibly even more.  The other thing that struck me (besides my classmates wanting to at times) was that despite all of the technological improvements available to streamline communications, ultimately it boiled-down to some very basic, old fashioned, human communication issues needing resolution before we could bring this project to completion.

13. Review of Literature In Hodge, B., Anthony, W., & Gales, L. (1996). Organization theory: a strategic approach. Boundary spanning activities are those functions that require members of the organization to spend all or part of their time interacting with people and organizations outside the boundaries of their own organization. As organizations face increasingly complex and uncertain environments, they create more numerous and “specialized boundary spanning units and they engage in more scanning activity.” (Hodge, Anthony, Gales, p. 121-123)

14. Review of Literature In Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2000). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, fulfilling the promise of the mission requires every member of a team tobecome a full member of a community of practice, “having access to a wide range of ongoing activity, old timers, and other members of the communityand to information, resources, and opportunities for participation.” The central issue to membership in communities of practice is really about access. (Lave & Wenger, 2002 (p100-101).

15. Review Of Literature In The Team Software Process,TechnicalReport (Humphrey, November 2000),Watts Humphrey developed the TSP process to provide an operational process to help engineers consistently do quality work. He identified where the teams needed further guidance and enhanced the process to provide that guidance. It was also obvious that management must broadly support the TSP process. An enhanced TSP0.1 process was then used by additional teams, providing more information on needed process refinements. It was an “action research” process that kept cycling itself.

16. REFERENCES • Baldrige National Quality Program (1998). Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award 1998 winner: Boeing airlift and tanker programs [On-line]. Available: www.quality.nist.gov/Boeing_98 • Boeing (2002-2003). Special edition. Chicago: The Boeing Company. • Boeing (2002). [Review of the video The dream team]. 23 min. Macon, Georgia: The Boeing Company. • Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1991). Reframing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. • Boyett, J., & Conn, H. (1992). Workplace 2000: the revolution reshapingAmerican business. New York: Penguin Books. • Bowditch, J., & Buono, A. (1994). A primer on organizational behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. • Brown , J., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: The Harvard Business School Press.

17. REFERENCES • Collins, J., & Porras, J. (1994). Built to last: successful habits of visionary companies. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. • Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. • DeMarco, T., & Lister, T. (1987). Peopleware: productive projects and teams. New York: Dorset House Publishing Co. • Drucker, P. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. • Dryer, J. (1984). Team research and team training: a state-of-the-art review. Human Factors Review, 286-309

18. REFERENCES • Ferguson, P., & Humphrey, W. (1997). Introducing the personal software process: three industry case studies. IEEE Computer, 30, 24-31. • Hodge, B., Anthony, W., & Gales, L. (1996). Organization theory: a strategic approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. •  Humphrey, W. (1989). Managing the software process. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. • Jemison, D. (1984). The importance of boundary spanning roles in strategic decision-making. Journal of Management Studies, 21, 131-152. • Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (1999). The wisdom of teams: creating the high performance organization. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

19. REFERENCES • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2000). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Boston: Cambridge University Press. • Software Engineering Institute (2000, November). The Team Software Process TechnicalReport [On-line]. Retrieved May 4th, 2003 from www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/00.reports • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University press.