How Not to Organize In-House Experts: Lessons From Boeing

In the race to recruit and deploy talent, organizations often focus on attracting highly skilled experts and then optimizing internal knowledge flow. But translating expertise into better business decisions and superior outcomes hinges on how well in-house experts are organized. Balancing specialization with collaboration, matching experts with the right tasks, promoting a broad spectrum of expertise, and embedding domain expertise into leadership are all factors that matter. The disasters involving Boeing’s 737 Max 8 airliner, which claimed hundreds of lives, and the company’s ongoing business struggles offer a stark lesson: Poor organization of expertise can have severe consequences. Only by thoughtfully placing and valuing experts can managers unlock their workforce’s full potential.

That insight was derived from my recently published research, which was based on interviews with engineers, technicians, and product managers specializing in dozens of expertise areas at another major aeronautical organization. The 15-month in-depth field study examined how experts are organized — staffed into job roles, grouped in departments and projects, and classified in specialty directories. My findings indicate that the design of organizational structures can reveal and enhance expertise — or devalue and obscure it. The research also informs guidance on how to improve your organization’s approach to organizing experts.

The Boeing Case: A Misorganization of Experts

At first glance, Boeing’s recent troubles may appear to stem from faulty strategies, incorrect priorities, or a shortage of expertise. For instance, a midflight door-plug blowout on an Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9 flight in January suggests that Boeing may have unintentionally sent critical expertise out of house when it outsourced aircraft production. However, investigations by various agencies, including the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), revealed a more significant issue: Boeing’s organizational structure did not properly place internal experts, which meant that some employees were unable to continue gaining knowledge in their specialization, and some key roles were assigned inappropriately. The company also undervalued some critical knowledge required for its operations, including the type of expertise needed to oversee entire Boeing processes end to end and the technical knowledge required for informed decision-making, the FAA investigations found.

Organizational structures define how roles and responsibilities are assembled, and serve as frameworks for individuals on how to navigate their work.