[kayfox]

From what I understand its because each piece of software needs a formal design process and certifications, so if you were to make one piece of software that spans 5 aircraft, for each change to each aircraft's code in that software you have to re-certify it 5 times and not just once.

Theres also major differences in architecture of avionics, how tooling works, which vendors supply what between all the different aircraft. Remember, Boeing tried this idea of commonality between product lines in the 757/767 project and the approach has since fallen out of favor.

[FloorEgg]

Yeah I wasn't very clear in my comment that I don't mean to judge the unique software stack for each aircraft as a result of the broken culture, or even dysfunctional (though as an outsider I did find it surprising). My point was more so that the technical challenge of maintaining accountability through heuristic checks is pretty infeasible, so the impacts of a broken culture of accountability are much harder to contain.

Some businesses can get away with operating with a culture lacking personal ownership and accountability for much longer when it's harder to hide cut corners, because it's easier to encode business rules to enforce accountability.

So to me, what makes Boeing's case so news worthy is of course the stakes being so high, and also the fact that the engineering culture that was sacrificed wasn't just a nice to have, it was essential, and no amount of MBA business rules can make up for it.