Comment by CoastalCoder
12 hours ago
In case you're getting that from my GP post, let me clarify.
I believe that in this particular situation, Boeing intentionally cut some safety corners to improve their profitability:
1) Pushed their airplane production rate so high that many of their workers didn't believe they were producing safe airplanes.
2) Took various steps to convince the FAA to allow the 737 MAX to fly with the same type rating as other 737s, despite it being pretty clear to outsiders that MCAS warranted additional training.
3) Fired QA staff / whistle-blowers for raising legitimate concerns.
4) Chose to not halt production to address safety concerns that had been raised.
I'm arguing that every one of those choices was ultimately made to maximize Boeing profits.
Certainly there are some situations where money can't magically fix a problem. But in my judgement this isn't one of them.
I come at it more from the angle of quality culture. I have been in big companies and small ones, and my experience is that quality is a function of engineering culture and structure, not funding.
Similarly, very few companies intentionally cut corners and trade quality risk for profit. Instead, they become bad at understanding, managing, and communicating quality risk. It is a type of governance problem, but a much more nuanced one than simple greed. Afterall, quality is a tool to ensure profits. Instead, I think it often a story of bad hiring, botched policy changes, and slow decay of organizational competency. Often times, this is the direct result of trying to throw dumb money at a problem.