There were a lot of apprehensions among the directors as the company had not enough experience of developing a plane of their own.
Project Uncertainty and Risk Management, the project management was not effective in Boeing 767 program, is the first weakness. Since the company did not have any past experience of cockpit design for two persons, it resulted in many difficulties in the successful execution of the final product. There should have been a through analysis of design before getting the final approval. Another weakness was that the geographic locations of production were also not considered. This hence became a major weakness as the transportation of parts was important on time. Time also became critical also due to the change in the design of cockpit.
The strength was that the conversion of conversion from two-person to three person cockpit, which a very big risk was handled very intelligently. First strength was that the delivery of the planes was just one month delayed. This conversion also raised project uncertainty concern. As the parts were designed for two person cockpit and payments were already made. The strength of project management was that it was decided that modification experts will fix this problem once parts are installed. This resulted in minimization of the risk of production disruption. Hence the project uncertainty arising from risk was avoided. This made the design of new cockpit more adaptable to changes.
In terms of quality managements another weakness aroused due to this conversion for space. This risk seemed to disrupt the modification of the thirty planes which were almost ready and were also ready to be flown. However, many managers opposed this approach as it violated the fire control systems and may result in working environment without fire system for some time till the new system gets installed again (Shaw, 1999).
Another weakness in terms of quality was about the modification in production. Until all drawing and parts were available, cockpit work was delayed for two-crew models, and also demanded the alteration in the test procedure. Testing of each system sequentially when it became operational was not possible then. Furthermore another weakness which reinforced this weakness was that functional testing was done after complete installation of two-person cockpit. Hence the delay in problem detection and correction became another big weakness in terms of quality assurance. This gave chances for some errors and problem to be overlooked from one stage of installation to other.
However, the strength of this program with regard to the quality management was that parts installation was done only once and there were no subsequent removal hence the configuration was secured. This reduces the effort cost that might have incurred if parts were removed one after the