Study analyzes management processes and training
By Dr. William Cox
We all know the unending string of reports about quality problems with Boeing aircraft. Such difficulties typically reflect weaknesses in management processes, governance and even training.
Yieldrive, a company which quantifies the financial effects of internal management processes, environmental, social and governance (ESG), used its proprietary AI to analyze management strength in 56 aerospace and defense companies.
The analysis assesses 120 management performance areas drawing on 10 years of data from annual reports, selected news sources and ESG / management reports. The millions of resulting content points yield performance scores for each area, balancing facts, sentiment and the relevance of each content point.
Here we highlight and compare Airbus and Boeing according to a selection of these indicators and find that training plays a major role in driving overall management performance.
Airbus Gains in Governance and Management
Let’s first focus on governance, which includes management practices and quality. Here Airbus does a markedly better job, scoring +29.78 points (on a scale of -100 to 100 points… negative 100 to positive 100) compared with Boeing’s +17.77.
Yes, it is possible for a company to have a negative score.
The results indicate weaknesses in Boeing’s internal processes, which are likely to have contributed to its current problems. Boeing scores only 27 points in its Critical Incident and Risk Management, for example.
A partial comparison of several of the 70 governance and management areas analyzed reveals further differences in performance:
| Governance/Management area | Boeing (on a scale of -100 to +100) | Airbus (on a scale of -100 to +100) |
| Product transparency | 34 | 68 |
| Total fines paid to regulators | 42 | 67 |
| Product quality & safety | 62 | 90 |
| Management of legal & regulatory matters | 44 | 75 |
| Code of ethics / conduct for employees | 51 | 85 |
Boeing Falls Behind in Training
The Yieldrive study includes 30 employee and community-related processes, including various types of training. Here, too, Airbus pulls ahead of Boeing with a total social score of 29.43 points compared with Boeing’s 15.62.
Airbus scores higher in each of these TRAINING indicators:
| Social area | Boeing (on a scale of -100 to +100) | Airbus (on a scale of -100 to +100) |
| Technical training of employees | 14 | 34 |
| Training of employees in client relations | 61 | 65 |
| Training for employees in data & cyber security | 29 | 54 |
| Training programs to develop corporate culture | 49 | 78 |
| Effectiveness of training expenses (cost / benefit) | 37 | 62 |
Airbus Leads on Environment, Too
A United Nations study in 2019 found a 3,800% increase in environmental regulations worldwide since 1972. Indeed, the pace of environmental directives has probably even accelerated since.
Airbus achieves 30.44 points for its environmental performance and Boeing garners 18.94.
A selection of the 20 environmental indicators refer to the performances of the companies’ facilities:
| Environmental area | Boeing (on a scale of -100 to +100) | Airbus (on a scale of -100 to +100) |
| Environmental risk management | 47 | 83 |
| Carbon emissions balance | 50 | 85 |
| Water management | 49 | 87 |
| Energy expenses | 47 | 84 |
| Digitalization plan to reduce emissions | 63 | 86 |
| Environmental impacts management | 67 | 86 |
Even if we review excerpts of the millions of data points covered in the Yieldrive aerospace study, the performance gap in management and training processes between Airbus and Boeing seem to suggest that differences in management and training performances lead to differences in product performance.
