PLM Implementation for Aerospace & Defense

We judge an aerospace implementation on five things: it goes live on the plan we agreed, it passes your AS9100 audit, people use it every day, it pays back, and you'd hire us again. Most of what makes that happen is decided before configuration starts.

• Aerospace experience, not a method borrowed from other industries. Tail-number effectivity, serial traceability and ITAR segregation are designed in from the start.
• Compliance first. AS9100 and ITAR requirements shape the data model; they aren't added at the end.
• Integration. PLM, ERP, MES and quality systems are planned as one digital thread.
• Change management. Adoption is part of the plan and is measured after go-live.
• Realistic timelines. Most failed aerospace PLM projects we're asked to rescue were squeezed into a schedule the compliance work couldn't fit.
• Knowledge transfer. Your team runs the system after we leave.

We also turn work down. If the scope, budget or sponsorship isn't there for a compliant implementation, we'll say so before you sign.

Aerospace user adoption is challenging because users are often highly skilled engineers and technicians who've used legacy systems for decades. They're skeptical of new systems that promise to "make their job easier."

Element's adoption approach:

1. Involve users early (Requirements Phase)

• Shadow engineers, quality inspectors, manufacturing planners
• Document how they actually work (not how procedures say they should)
• Design PLM workflows to match real work, not idealized processes
• Get their input on configuration before building

2. Create champions in each department

• Identify respected experts (people others go to for help)
• Train champions deeply (how system works, not just how to use)
• Champions train their peers (more credible than consultants)
• Champions become internal support after we leave

3. Training that's relevant

• Role-based training (engineers see engineering features, not everything)
• Real scenarios (not generic examples)
• Hands-on practice (not just PowerPoint)
• Available when needed (not just one session at go-live)

4. Prove value early

• Quick wins in pilot (solve immediate pain points)
• Show the time saved on a task people do every day, measured in the pilot
• Demonstrate error reduction (fewer rejected parts)
• Celebrate successes (recognize departments with high adoption)

5. Continuous improvement

• Monthly user feedback sessions (what's working, what's not)
• Address top complaints quarterly (show you're listening)
• Simplify workflows based on usage patterns
• Add features users request (within reason)

How we check adoption: we track daily active users by role, the share of engineering changes that go through PLM instead of around it, and whether usage holds after the first few months. If it slips, we fix the workflow, not the users.

Key insight: Aerospace users adopt when system makes their job genuinely easier, not when forced to use system that adds friction. Design for their workflow, not generic best practices.

Legacy data migration is one of the most complex aspects of aerospace PLM implementation. You can't just "lift and shift" old CAD files and BOMs—you need a strategy for cleaning, validating, and restructuring data.

Element's migration approach:

Phase 1: Assessment

• Audit legacy data quality (completeness, accuracy, consistency)
• Identify critical vs non-critical data (what must migrate)
• Classify by product lifecycle stage (active, sustaining, obsolete)
• Estimate migration effort and timeline

Phase 2: Strategy

• Define migration scope (what migrates, what archives)
• Establish data quality standards (what's acceptable)
• Plan migration sequence (pilot first, then phased rollout)
• Define success criteria (validation approach)

Phase 3: Data Cleansing

• Clean part numbering (standardize format)
• Fix BOM errors (missing components, wrong quantities)
• Validate metadata (descriptions, classifications)
• Resolve duplicates and conflicts

Phase 4: Migration Execution

• Migrate pilot product family (validate approach)
• Automated migration where possible (bulk import with validation)
• Manual migration for complex items (assemblies with errors)
• Validate migrated data (compare before/after)

What gets migrated:

• ✅ Active products (currently in production)
• ✅ Sustaining products (field service support needed)
• ✅ Recent designs (still in use or likely to be reused)

What gets archived:

• 📦 Obsolete products (no longer supported)
• 📦 Old designs (kept for the historical record only)
• 📦 Superseded revisions (keep latest, archive history)

Critical consideration for aerospace: aircraft that stay in service for decades mean you must maintain access to old data even if not in new PLM. We design archival strategies that allow retrieval when field service needs old configuration data.

Migration effort: often one of the larger parts of an aerospace program, more than in automotive, because of traceability requirements and the age of the data.

Yes, PLM can significantly reduce FAA certification time by organizing requirements, design evidence, test results, and compliance documentation in a structured, traceable format that FAA inspectors can audit efficiently.

How PLM accelerates certification:

Requirements Traceability:

• Link every design element to specific FAA requirement
• Generate compliance matrix automatically (requirement → evidence)
• Identify missing evidence before FAA review
• Track requirement changes and impact on design

Design History File (DHF):

• Compile all design documentation automatically
• Maintain version history with approval records
• Link test results to design elements
• Assemble the certification data package for FAA review from records already in PLM

Test Management:

• Plan certification tests linked to requirements
• Capture test results and link to design
• Track test status (planned, in progress, complete)
• Flag requirements with missing test evidence

Change Control:

• Track design changes during certification
• Identify which changes require re-certification
• Maintain certification change log for FAA
• Generate change impact analysis

Clients see the time savings mostly in three places: certification packages are assembled from records already in PLM instead of being compiled by hand; fewer packages go to the FAA with documents missing; and questions from the inspector are answered from the system the same day.

ITAR compliance in PLM requires three layers of control: classification, access restriction, and audit trails.

Layer 1: Data Classification

• Flag parts, assemblies, and documents as ITAR-controlled at creation
• Cascade ITAR classification through BOM (if assembly is ITAR, all components inherit)
• Watermark all ITAR documents with export control warnings
• Separate ITAR and commercial data visually in system

Layer 2: Access Control

• Verify users are U.S. persons before granting access to ITAR data
• Restrict foreign nationals from accessing ITAR-controlled items
• Role-based access control (not everyone needs access to everything)
• Prevent unauthorized data export (no bulk downloads of ITAR data)

Layer 3: Audit Trail

• Log every access to ITAR data (who, what, when, from where)
• Track all modifications to ITAR-controlled items
• Record all data exports (files downloaded, reports generated)
• Generate ITAR audit reports for DDTC inspection

Deployment Considerations:

• Cloud: U.S. data centers, U.S.-person administration, and, if you handle CUI, a FedRAMP Moderate (or equivalent) environment under DFARS 252.204-7012
• On-premise: Physical security controls required
• Hybrid: Separate ITAR instance from commercial instance
• Backups: ITAR data must be stored in U.S.-controlled locations

We've built ITAR access controls into Windchill for defense and aerospace manufacturers, designed against DDTC requirements, not generic security policy.

Aerospace and automotive have fundamentally different PLM requirements:

Product Lifecycle:

• Aerospace: Decades (must support the aircraft for its whole service life)
• Automotive: A few years per model, with refresh cycles

Configuration Complexity:

• Aerospace: Every aircraft is unique (tail-number-specific)
• Automotive: Millions of vehicles with same configuration

Traceability:

• Aerospace: Serial number traceability to individual components
• Automotive: Lot traceability (batch-based)

Change Management:

• Aerospace: Effectivity-based (changes apply to specific aircraft)
• Automotive: Date-based (all vehicles after date X)

Compliance:

• Aerospace: AS9100, ITAR, FAA (rigorous, audit-heavy)
• Automotive: IATF 16949 (less stringent than aerospace)

Volume:

• Aerospace: Low volume, often a few aircraft a month
• Automotive: High volume, often a vehicle a minute or faster

Generic PLM implementations often fail in aerospace because they assume automotive-style requirements. Aerospace needs configuration management, effectivity, and traceability that automotive doesn't require.

Aerospace PLM implementations usually run longer than in other industries because AS9100 compliance, ITAR controls and certification support can't be shortcut. The work runs in four stages: requirements and compliance mapping; configuration and integration build; pilot and phased rollout; full production and AS9100 audit support.

It goes faster when you have one site rather than several, a narrower integration scope (PLM only, not PLM-ERP-MES-QMS), a cloud deployment, and a mostly standard configuration. We give you a timeline after discovery, and most of the failed projects we've rescued had been promised a much shorter one.

Yes, but it requires aerospace-specific PLM configuration that most generic implementations don't provide. You need a PLM structure that treats each aircraft (tail number) as a unique configuration instance, not just as "another copy" of the same design.

This means:

• Each tail number has its own configuration record
• Effectivity rules determine which changes apply to which tail numbers
• As-built records capture what's actually installed on each aircraft
• Service bulletins and modifications tracked per tail number
• Spare parts ordered based on actual configuration, not design BOM

PTC Windchill has the strongest native support for this in the industry. We've implemented it for aerospace manufacturers that manage every tail number as its own configuration.

PLM provides serial number and lot traceability from raw material through finished product. Every component, subassembly, and assembly has a unique identifier that tracks where it came from, when it was installed, what configuration it's part of, and who performed the work.

When integrated with MES and QMS, this creates the complete audit trail AS9100 auditors require—showing not just what should have been installed (design BOM), but what actually was installed (as-built record) and whether it passed inspection (quality records).

For AS9100 compliance, PLM must:

• Track serial numbers and lot numbers at every level of the BOM
• Maintain configuration baselines with change history
• Link manufacturing operations to specific units (who built what, when)
• Connect inspection results to specific serial numbers
• Generate traceability reports automatically for audits

We build that traceability into the PLM structure from the start, so audit evidence is a report, not a scramble.

AS9100 (the aerospace quality management standard) requires extensive documentation control, change traceability, and configuration management — all of which PLM systems like Windchill are designed to provide.

Specific AS9100 requirements that PLM addresses:

Clause 8.1.2 (Configuration Management): PLM provides the configuration baseline, revision history, and BOM structure that constitute the defined product configuration.

Clause 8.3.6 (Design and Development Changes): Windchill's ECO workflow provides the formal change review, approval, and documentation trail required by AS9100.

Clause 8.4 (Control of Externally Provided Processes): PLM supplier collaboration portals provide documented supplier design data exchange with controlled access and audit trail.

Clause 8.5.2 (Identification and Traceability): PLM's part revision history and as-built records provide the traceability from customer requirements through design to manufactured parts.

Clause 8.6 (Release of Products and Services): PLM holds the design data that AS9102 First Article Inspection (FAI) is checked against.

Organizations implementing Windchill for AS9100 typically configure the system to align their part lifecycle states and change workflow stages with AS9100 clause requirements, making audit evidence extraction straightforward.

ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) controls the export of defense-related products and technical data. For manufacturers with ITAR-controlled designs, PLM must enforce data access controls that prevent unauthorized foreign national access.

PLM ITAR compliance requires:

Access control:

• Role-based access that restricts ITAR-flagged items to US persons only
• Automatic exclusion of foreign nationals from ITAR data views
• Attribute-level control (ITAR flag on individual parts and documents)

Windchill ITAR configuration:

• Mark parts and documents with an ITAR classification attribute
• Configure access control rules that deny non-US-person groups access to ITAR-flagged content
• Enable audit logging of all ITAR data access for compliance reporting

Cloud considerations:
Windchill+ (cloud) can be deployed in US-region data centers with access controls that meet ITAR requirements. Organizations must verify their cloud deployment meets DFARS 252.204-7012 cybersecurity requirements and, for CUI/CDI, potentially CMMC Level 2 or 3 requirements.

Key risk: The default Windchill configuration is NOT ITAR-compliant. ITAR access controls must be deliberately designed and tested before go-live.