Recently in class we discussed a case study on the wide-body aircraft industry. In that discussion Dr. Tufte suggested that the evidence supporting the learning curve is really quite flimsy. He said that most of the supporting evidence was gathered during WWII and the decreases in time were the result of lower quality not improved ability. He further stated that the decreases in costs in the wide-body case study came about because the fixed costs were being allocated over more units of production. I’m not sure I buy that. A person does get more proficient at a task with repetition. Dr. Tufte himself I think would admit this, one of the reasons he started one of his blogs was that he “was losing (his) ‘edge’ as a writer.” That would suggest to me a shift backwards along a learning curve. I will admit though that the discussion in class made me question whether or not learning curves are a valid as I had thought.
1 comment:
-1 on Seth's comment for grammatical problems.
In my defense, I did not say that learning curve effects were the same as economies-of-scale. More precisely, I noted that it is very hard to tell them apart, and most of the serious criticism of learning curve models has been to correct for hidden economies-of-scale effects. And ... the whole point is to get you less focused on that idea.
I do personally believe in learning curve effects, albeit small ones. But, it's my job to be open minded, and if someone who specializes in that area says the evidence is a lot flimsier than we thought, then I pass it on to you.
Post a Comment