Lean Synchronization at Boeing: Operations Management Analysis

Introduction

This paper focuses on a particular facet of operations management as it relates to a specific firm. The operations management concept under examination is lean synchronization, and the company in focus is aircraft manufacturer Boeing. Boeing has performed well in the broader competitive landscape, but faces competition from a significant number of companies, with Airbus being the largest rival. Boeing has never rested when it comes to making adjustments and strategic pivots. The company has attracted attention from government regulatory agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). While Boeing faces heavy competition and operational management challenges — including scrutiny from the government and the broader political climate — it is making the right overall moves in terms of lean synchronization and general operations management principles.

Industry Overview and the Lean Synchronization Framework

Boeing is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Founded in 1916, the company currently employs approximately 165,500 people. As noted above, their main competitor is Airbus. Other significant competitors include Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, NASA, and General Dynamics Corporation. Boeing remains the clear leader of the group, with Airbus being the closest rival. Revenue for the most recent reported year came to approximately $94.94 billion USD for Boeing and approximately $73.80 billion USD for Airbus. Lockheed Martin placed a distant third at $45.40 billion USD. On the whole, the industry is organized around three major sectors: civilian passenger transportation, cargo transportation (e.g., UPS, FedEx), and the military sector. In the latter category, many military aircraft are repurposed or revamped versions of civilian planes adapted for different applications (Yahoo Finance, 2015). As a related analogy, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic civilian version of the M-16, the automatic rifle used by the United States military (Chang, 2013).

As the name suggests, lean synchronization is the combination of two major tactics and practices in operations management. The first component is the "lean" dimension. Many companies seek to operate on a basis that equips the business with the resources and labor it needs, while keeping everything as minimalist and efficient as possible. For example, if current work orders require approximately twenty people, then roughly twenty people will be on hand rather than a surplus. There may be a small buffer to prepare for fluctuations in demand and workload — indeed, this constitutes proper risk management and should be practiced. However, maintaining a workforce that is too bloated and wasteful is the antithesis of a lean approach. When there are peaks and valleys in workforce demand, there are ways to prepare for this, but the goal is always to do so in ways that avoid costs that can be eliminated with a little forethought (Tsai, Yang & Lin, 2007).

The second component of lean synchronization is the synchronization element. Like most large companies, Boeing has facilities spread across the United States. Dispersed locations can lead to situations where different sites operate in quite different ways. Sometimes this is unavoidable and is simply part of doing business across a wide geography or with a diverse product range. However, companies like Boeing go out of their way to minimize these variations because doing so keeps costs down. A useful analogy comes from the automobile industry. The Cadillac Escalade looks quite different on the outside from other General Motors products like the Tahoe and the Suburban. However, looking more closely reveals that the underlying mechanicals of all three models are quite similar — and this is by design. The same principle applies internationally. General Motors products sold in markets such as India and Australia often carry different names and exterior designs, but their base platforms are usually similar or identical to those used in North America. Boeing operates on the same logic. While the company must align with the compliance and preference requirements of the buyer's country and the buyer themselves, the base platforms used are typically very similar across markets, in the interest of simplicity and cost efficiency. This is the hallmark of lean synchronization: keeping things lean and efficient while maintaining as much standardization as is reasonably possible, while still delivering a complete and effective product to end users — whether that is the United States military, a commercial airline, or a logistics company (Tsai, Yang & Lin, 2007).

Boeing must engage in lean synchronization because the marketplace demands it. This is analogous to retailers who import large volumes of goods from China. Even if such companies face criticism for this practice, failing to do so would put them at a distinct competitive disadvantage — potentially severe enough to cause significant market share loss or even threaten the company's viability. The net cost of goods would rise and would either have to be absorbed (unlikely) or passed on to the buyer. If Boeing were to use inferior or costlier practices, customers would tend to turn to Airbus or another competitor instead. Indeed, many planes in United States commercial airline fleets are already Airbus aircraft, and Airbus would undoubtedly welcome the opportunity to increase its market share further in the United States and globally (Team, 2015).

Boeing's Location Strategy and Operational Consolidation

Boeing has been deliberate about its lean synchronization practices and has not allowed them to stagnate. One example involves the choice of where to locate operations. For many years, Boeing maintained a facility in Wichita, Kansas — a city with a strong aerospace presence, even if much smaller than the greater Seattle area. Other aerospace companies, including Lockheed and Raytheon, also have a strong presence there. However, Boeing made a calculated decision to close its Wichita operations. Rather than reducing overall output, Boeing rolled Wichita's operations into other existing locations, thereby reducing its total facility count without sacrificing capacity. Boeing had been present in Wichita for approximately eighty-five years. The work previously performed there was redistributed to Oklahoma City, San Antonio, and Seattle. Oklahoma City, the nearest of the three, is only about a three-hour drive from Wichita (McMillin, 2014).

Another way Boeing has kept costs down is by carefully selecting where to build new plants. However, some of these decisions have generated controversy. A prominent example was Boeing's allocation of work to South Carolina instead of several other sites under consideration. Critics argued that this choice was a transparent effort to avoid unionized workforces and the higher wages associated with them. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) became involved, asserting that Boeing's decision to shift more operations to South Carolina came at the expense of machinists in the Puget Sound area and amounted to "illegally punishing" those workers. The complaint was eventually dropped and Boeing proceeded with its plans, but the episode illustrates how even routine operational decisions about facility location can become politically and legally charged (Song, 2012).

Conclusion

Boeing has been in operation for nearly a century and has demonstrated remarkable staying power. However, once-dominant organizations have a tendency to fade or diminish over time. Retail giants such as Montgomery Ward, Blockbuster, and others have disappeared entirely, while companies like Sears, K-Mart, and JC Penney appear to be in long-term decline. In the fast food sector, McDonald's dominated for decades but has faced growing challenges and will need to adapt to remain relevant. Boeing has not reached that stage — it remains the clear leader in its industry. However, should the company become complacent or careless in its operations management practices, that position could change. Sustained commitment to lean synchronization and continuous improvement will be essential to preserving Boeing's competitive advantage in the years ahead.

References

Airbus. (2015). Alabama — Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer. Airbus.

Chang, A. (2013). Why the AR-15 is more than just a gun. NPR.org.

Demmitt, J. (2015). Boeing acquires German software startup to train more pilots in Europe. GeekWire.

McMillin, M. (2014). End of an era: Boeing in final stages of leaving Wichita. Kansas.com.

Schonberger, R. (2011). The missing ingredient? Industrial Engineer: IE, 43(6), 26.

Sloan, C. (2015). Airbus inaugurates first U.S. final assembly line in Mobile, Alabama. Airways News.

Song, K. (2012). NLRB's top lawyer still feels fallout from Boeing, union case. The Seattle Times.

Team, T. (2015). Boeing leads Airbus in the race for new commercial airplane orders in 2014. Forbes.com.

Tsai, M., Yang, J., & Lin, C. (2007). Synchronization-based model for improving on-site data collection performance. Automation in Construction, 16(3), 323–335. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2006.07.001

Yahoo Finance. (2015). The Boeing Company. Yahoo! Finance.