In most aerospace environments, AS9102 / FAI software should first integrate with the systems that own product definition and work/part context. The exact order depends on your architecture, but a common, practical sequence is:
1. PLM/PDM and CAD (product definition & revisions)
This is usually the highest-value and most defensible first integration, because AS9102 forms must reflect the current, approved design and revision.
- Typical integration objects: part numbers, drawing files, 3D models, revisions, BOMs, effectivity, change orders.
- Why first:
- Enables reliable ballooning and characteristic extraction from the current drawing/model.
- Reduces manual retyping and misalignment between FAI and design records.
- Supports traceability to the design authority and change history.
- Risks and constraints:
- Legacy PLM/PDM may have weak or inconsistent metadata; integrations often require data cleanup.
- Automated characteristic extraction depends heavily on drawing standards, CAD formats, and supplier tools (e.g., Net-Inspect workflows for some OEMs).
- Any interface that exposes technical data must respect export control, ITAR, and customer data handling requirements.
2. ERP and/or MES (part, routing, and work-order context)
Next, most teams integrate the AS9102 system with ERP and/or MES to avoid rekeying basic part and order information and to tie FAI activity to actual production.
- Typical integration objects: part master, work orders, routings / operations, operation numbers, suppliers, purchase orders, serial/lot numbers, manufacturing sites and cells.
- Why early:
- Lets you auto-populate Form 1 (part, PO/WO, serial, revision, traceability fields) from a controlled source of record.
- Links FAI completion to release of the work order, PO, or configuration in ERP/MES.
- Provides a basis for tying nonconformances and concessions back to specific builds and lots.
- ERP vs MES priority:
- ERP first if most FAIs are triggered on new part introductions and supplier POs, and you lack a modern MES.
- MES first if you already use aerospace MES / digital travelers for execution and want FAI status to gate production release.
- In many brownfield plants, a minimal ERP integration (part/WO/PO header) plus a narrow MES interface (operation and serial context) is more realistic than a full, bi-directional integration with both.
- Risks and constraints:
- Data quality problems in ERP/MES (duplicate parts, unclear revision handling, manual overrides) can propagate straight into FAI records.
- Change control around routing and revision in ERP/MES may be slow; integration changes often require cross-functional approvals and revalidation.
- Downtime for core ERP/MES is highly constrained; integrations should be designed to be deployable with minimal or no outage.
3. QMS / NCR / CAPA systems (nonconformance linkages)
Once product and order context are integrated, the next priority is usually tying FAIs to quality events.
- Typical integration objects: NCRs, deviations/concessions, waivers, corrective actions, approvals.
- Why next:
- Enables a clear chain between FAI results and subsequent nonconformance and CAPA activity.
- Improves audit readiness: you can show exactly which FAIs relate to which MRB decisions and corrective actions.
- Helps prevent recurring issues by feeding failure modes from NCR/CAPA back into inspection planning and characteristic risk ranking.
- Risks and constraints:
- Many QMS platforms are highly customized; integration can be slower and requires careful mapping of fields and workflows.
- Evidence-management expectations under AS9100 and customer audits mean you must maintain robust audit trails for any automated data exchange.
4. Supplier and customer portals (e.g., Net-Inspect, OEM portals)
For organizations heavily involved in build-to-print or multi-tier supply chains, integration with supplier and OEM systems can be critical, but usually after internal systems are stable.
- Typical integration objects: customer-specific FAI templates, characteristic numbering, submission status, acknowledgement, rejection reasons.
- Why after core internal systems:
- Reduces duplicate work entering FAIs in internal tools and customer portals.
- Supports consistent ballooning and characteristic numbering when OEMs mandate specific patterns.
- Can shorten turnaround on FAI approvals if submissions are more consistent and complete.
- Risks and constraints:
- Customer portals and formats change, sometimes without much notice; brittle integrations are expensive to maintain.
- Suppliers may have mixed maturity levels; pushing too much automation downstream can increase failure modes rather than reduce them.
5. Measurement and test systems (optional early, high value later)
Direct integration with CMMs, gages, and test stands can reduce manual data entry, but it is usually not the first integration due to complexity and validation burden.
- Typical integration objects: measurement results, pass/fail data, test reports, gage IDs, calibration records.
- Why usually later:
- Each device or software package may require a custom interface, especially in older cells.
- Data formats, units, and tolerances must be carefully aligned with FAI characteristics to avoid misinterpretation.
- Any automated decision-making based on test data often carries additional validation expectations.
How to choose the integration order in a brownfield plant
The right first integration depends on where trustworthy data already lives and on your change-control constraints:
- If drawings and revisions are your main pain point: PLM/CAD integration first, then minimal ERP/MES linkage.
- If FAI creation is mostly a retyping of ERP/MES data: ERP/MES first, then design-side integration.
- If audits are mainly about linking FAIs to NCR/CAPA: a light ERP/MES integration plus early QMS linkage may be justified.
Full replacement of ERP, MES, or QMS to “get better integration” is rarely practical in aerospace-grade environments. Qualification burden, downtime risk, validation cost, and the complexity of re-establishing traceability usually make targeted integrations and incremental improvements more realistic than platform swaps.
Dependencies, validation, and change control
For any AS9102 integration, especially in regulated and customer-audited environments, you should assume:
- Configuration matters: field mappings, revision rules, and status gating must match your existing processes and customer contracts.
- Validation effort: even “simple” integrations often require documented testing, traceability matrices, and regression checks when systems change.
- Robust audit trails: you need to be able to show who changed what, when, and based on which source system values.
- Long lifecycles: integrations must be maintainable across years of ERP/MES/PLM upgrades and OEM portal updates.
Because of these factors, many teams start with a narrow, high-impact integration (for example, PLM for design definition or ERP for part/work-order context) and expand only after that path proves stable under real audits and production use.
