Q1: Case Study: Read and answer the following questions.

Note: Word limit: 300 for each question

The launch of Boeing's Starliner capsule took place 10 months after competitor SpaceXs successful testing of its Starship and on a significantly larger budget ($4.2 billion vs. $2.5 billion for SpaceX) from NASA. One can only imagine the pressure under which developers were working at Boeing. The result? A failure to reach its destination, the International Space Station. While the cause is under investigation, early indications are that it was due to a faulty clock setting that started a fuel burn 11 hours too early into the mission, using up so much fuel that the capsule could not reach the proper altitude. According to a reported comment by Jim Chilton, senior vice president of the space and launch division at Boeing, the problem was with the Boeing software While we were addressing one possible example of a lack of coordinated, long-term thinking under pressure (among other things) associated with the fatal crashes of two Boeing MAX 737 jetliners, what quite possibly was another example unfolded. Contemplating a solution, Whats to be done? Nick C. suggested that Some mechanisms can be so suffocating and can fall into the over governed and under led bucket, others are so loose as to be undetectable and easily worked around. One perspective that might be helpful here is to more scientifically evaluate the dominant cultural traits and prevailing operating climate. Anna Johnson recommended: We need to flip the switch on dissent, delay, and accountability by enabling leadership to take a long view. Want to do better? Try asking your people to tell you honestly, What dont I know that I should know? And thenDont Shoot the Messenger. Inanc Inan was prescient as he kicked off this months discussion by asking, Where does the buck stop? (The) first ethical step (by Boeings CEO) would be to step away from the post to signal to shareholders and most importantly to the society that the changes will take place. The departure of Dennis Muilenburg, Boeings CEO, was announced on December 23. Boeings stock rallied on the news. Clearly, the departure of one person is not a solution to an endemic problem. The question remains: How does an organization coordinate work under intense competitive pressure? What do you think? Tube and train riders in Europe are well-aware of the term, mind the gap. They see it every time they step off a train or subway platform. In a sense, its also an appropriate warning for leaders of large organizations. Just how can they reduce the gaps in understanding between departments staffed with employees whose responsibilities and training vary widely? Inherent organizational conflict takes many formsfor example, between home office staff (who dont understand how the business really works, according to those in the field) and those in operating or engineering jobs (who dont understand the big picture, according to those at headquarters); between officers and enlisted personnel in the military; between doctors and hospital administrators; and between faculty and school administrators, to cite just a few examples. The conflict is inevitable; it will never be eliminated. This is an overs implication of a complex phenomenon, with nuances in every large organization that has grown beyond the one for all and all for one startup spirit. But when it rises to a level that affects marketing plans, engineering design, manufacturing schedules, and even safety, something has to be done. When combined with a loss of voice at lower levels in the organization, it can be lethal. In the view of some observers, thats what happened recently at Boeing.

The Boeing example: A whistleblower complaint blamed a control system failure for two fatal crashes of the Boeing 737 Max jet plane, after management refused to honor an engineering request for a safety device. Apparently, adding the safety device would have led to FAA required, and expensive, Level D training for every pilot assigned to fly the plane, something management was trying to avoid. Its alleged that pressure was increasingly being applied by top management to meet cost and delivery targets. Sales had done a great job selling planes several years out at prices based on costs that it was thought would eventually be achieved as the production learning curve kicked in. Employees were warned that pay was at risk if the targets werent met. According to one Bloomberg BusinessWeek report, They were targeting the highly paid, highly experienced engineers. One flight test group member commented, It was a climate that didnt reward people willing to buck managers So you really watched your step and were careful about what you said. Cant you just imagine it? Headquarters vs. the engineers, engineering vs. manufacturing, manufacturing vs. sales, etc. leading to Boeing vs. customers and the public. If this were an isolated case of a large, proud, successful company failing to mind the gap, we could ignore it. A proud engineering group was encouraged to apply its expertise to develop technology to aid cheating.

a: How Does a Company like Boeing Respond to Intense Competitive Pressure? (5)

b: How can leadership best mind the gap in large organizations? What do you think? (5)

c: List down the different organization structures and separate the complex structures and the simple structures. Explain why the structure is complex and simple. Give examples. (5)