My complaint is that the thrust of the article implies Boeing screwed it up, for reasons the author outlines.
They did not. Not so far as can be determined
Erm,
Jim Albaugh interview & lecture:
One bracing lesson that Albaugh was unusually candid about: the 787's global outsourcing strategy — specifically intended to slash Boeing's costs — backfired completely.
"We spent a lot more money in trying to recover than we ever would have spent if we'd tried to keep the key technologies closer to home," Albaugh told his large audience of students and faculty.
Boeing was forced to compensate, support or buy out the partners it brought in to share the cost of the new jet's development, and now bears the brunt of additional costs due to the delays.
Good enough for me...
It is not inherently "very dangerous" to outsource or modularize.
It is when you don't do it right as some posters have quite clearly pointed out.
As to the batteries and overall electrical system, as
hetfield points out, it is complicated, made more complicated by a worldwide supply chain besides being cutting edge technology. Not only that, it was not among the first problems to surface, fuselage sections not mating properly, wrong fasteners used, lack of fasteners and some structural concerns all came first and were show stoppers at the time. Boeing had to
focus on these problems as testing, certification and customer deliveries slipped away to some unknown time in the future... Were there any early signs (red flags) that there might be problems with batteries or the electrical system? Hmm...