PPM Aerospace: The Speed Factor in Aerospace & Defense Manufacturing

Jessica Rivard, a Senior Business Analyst and Defense Sector expert at Cora Systems, examines how continuous improvement drives speed in Aerospace & Defense Manufacturing. Her analysis covers the five focus areas that determine whether aerospace projects succeed or fail.

When it comes to aerospace engineering and defense manufacturing, here is a counterintuitive fact: we built things faster during the Cold War than we do now.

Aircraft and ships typically took about five years to build at the height of the Cold War. Compare that to the F-35, which required 20 years of development after entering service before seeing combat deployment.

The defense industrial base faces pressure to accelerate product delivery while meeting the same quality mandates. Government contracts carry a heightened sense of urgency, which increases the importance of establishing trust across acquisition and execution teams within government agencies, contractors, and auditing bodies.

Key takeaways for PPM aerospace success

1. Speed has regressed, not progressed: Cold War-era aerospace projects completed in 5 years; modern programs like the F-35 took 20 years. The defense industrial base must address the systemic causes of this slowdown.

2. Trust drives program velocity: Unrealistic bids erode trust between government customers, contractors, and auditing agencies like DCAA and DCMA. Data-backed estimates maintain team integrity.

3. Change management costs compound geometrically: A modification at the erection stage costs far less than the same change during outfitting. Late changes to precision-machined custom parts cause scrap, rework, and retesting.

4. Digitized knowledge replaces departing expertise: With experienced employees retiring and job markets competitive, organizations cannot rely on institutional memory. Captured bid data becomes the corporate memory that survives personnel changes.

5. Integrated systems accelerate material and workforce flow: Aerospace parts procurement, workforce planning, and resource management must work in concert. Disconnected systems create the bottlenecks that extend timelines.

Five focus areas for precision engineering in aerospace manufacturing

Continuous improvement in PPM aerospace operations requires attention to these specific areas: bid and estimating, change management, data integrity and continuity, workforce planning and retention, and material management. Each area contains leverage points that either accelerate or delay program execution.

Accurate estimating protects aerospace projects from downstream failures

Government contracting (GovCon) companies must submit competitive bids that the execution team can actually achieve. A low bid that proves unachievable damages both the GovCon company and the government customer, eroding trust on both sides.

Auditing and oversight agencies like the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) monitor program performance. They scrutinize any lack of cost and schedule control, flagging deviations from contractual values.

Trust forms the foundation of every aerospace corp team. When government customers such as the US Navy or US Army doubt that a bid can be accomplished, team dynamics suffer. Rights to future contracts depend on demonstrated execution capability.

Effective change management reduces precision prototyping costs

Clear upfront cost identification across Design, Supply Chain, Scheduling, Planning, Manufacturing, and Quality phases establishes a basis for profitable work. This machine list of touchpoints includes labor, material, schedule disruption, rework, and burden.

When changes happen outside the planned build sequence, modification costs increase dramatically. Consider this example: increasing the diameter of an access point in a module seems straightforward. But if the desired point of incorporation is erection, delaying installation until the outfitting stage creates cascading costs.

Those costs include material scrap from precision-machined custom components, rework of affected assemblies, retesting requirements, and schedule disruption across multiple teams. Effective modification management demands systems (people, processes, and technology) that estimate, manage, track, and report effort throughout the business and across the change lifecycle.

Data-driven decisions at aerospace headquarters replace gut instinct

Historically, developing a proper bid or estimate relied on experienced people within the organization. Subject matter experts who knew the right questions shaped and drove bid efforts to completion. That expertise has become harder to access.

Retirement and competitive job markets have thinned the ranks of institutional knowledge holders. GovCon companies must digitize bid and estimating know-how to survive these workforce shifts.

Capturing data related to developing, submitting, and winning or losing bids creates a digital corporate memory. When key employees leave, the organization retains the core data that informed their decisions. This enables continued informed decision-making based on a digitized knowledge base.

Reliance on data-driven decisions is now standard practice for precision engineering organizations. Gut feelings have their place, but they are only as good as the experience behind them.

Workforce planning drives prototyping and production timelines

GovCon sector organizations need workforce planning capability that answers a specific question: given all the incoming demand, do we have the right staff to meet it? Do we need to staff up or staff down?

Resource managers must optimize department planning based on actual project and internal demand. They then coordinate with human resources to vet and acquire resources that match demand levels. PPM precision in workforce forecasting prevents both overstaffing waste and understaffing delays.

Early and accurate definition of resource demand prepares organizations to staff properly. This supports project tasking requirements and keeps aerospace ppm schedules on track.

Material management determines whether aerospace parts arrive on time

Effective material management for both initial contracts and subsequent modifications requires several capabilities working together: clear part definition, readily available supply, timely installation, appropriate quality assurance, good stewardship, and suitable cross-department communication.

Materials procured or delivered later than planned increase overall product cost in both labor and material. Late components force idle workers, rescheduled operations, and expedited shipping fees.

Integrated systems that communicate material requirements and availability across the organization support program performance. When prototyping teams, production floors, and procurement departments share real-time visibility into precision parts status, programs stay on schedule

About the author

Jessica Rivard is a Senior Business Analyst at Cora Systems. She has spent over 15 years working in the defense sector.

Learn more

To find out how Cora helps aerospace & defense clients streamline their project management, why not watch a recorded demo at  corasystems.com/tour.

Tune in to our most recent Project Management Paradise Podcast episodes available on Spotify and Apple.