For an AS9102 / First Article Inspection (FAI) software business case to be credible in a regulated aerospace environment, you typically need aligned support from several functions. The exact mix depends on your org structure, but the following roles are commonly critical.
Quality and compliance leadership
- Head of Quality / Quality Director: Typically the primary sponsor, responsible for AS9100 and AS9102 conformance, FAI process robustness, and audit readiness. They must agree the software addresses real pain (errors, rejections, escapes, audit findings) and fits within the QMS.
- Quality Engineering / FAI owners: Power users who define requirements for ballooning, characteristic control, form generation, evidence capture, and integration with inspection & NCR workflows. Without their support, adoption and configuration usually stall.
- Supplier Quality (if you review supplier FAIs): Critical when the tool will be used for incoming FAIs or to exchange data with supplier systems or Net-Inspect. They shape how external parties are onboarded and how evidence is accepted.
Operations, manufacturing engineering, and design
- Manufacturing Engineering: Often responsible for routings, work instructions, and characteristic definition. They must align FAI software with how characteristics flow from CAD/PLM into travelers and inspection plans.
- Production / Operations Leadership: Needed if operators or inspectors on the shop floor will use the tool, or if FAIs impact release to production, capacity, or takt. They will ask about cycle time, disruption risk, and training load.
- Design Engineering (if source characteristics come from CAD/PLM): Important when you want automated ballooning, model-based definition, or tighter linkage to drawing revisions. Their cooperation is often required for data formats, attributes, and change control.
IT / OT and systems architecture
- IT Applications / Enterprise Architecture: Needed to confirm how the AS9102 solution coexists with existing MES, ERP, PLM, QMS, and document control tools. They will focus on integration methods, data ownership, identity management, and lifecycle management.
- Infrastructure / Security / Compliance IT: Reviews hosting model, cybersecurity posture, export control implications, and data retention. Their sign-off is crucial if FAI data includes controlled technical data or is stored off-premise.
- OT / Plant Systems (where applicable): If FAIs are tied to machine data, gaging systems, or shop-floor terminals, OT stakeholders will weigh in on connectivity, network segmentation, and downtime risk.
Finance and program management
- Finance / Controlling: Required to validate the ROI assumptions: reduced rework, fewer customer rejections, lower administrative burden, and avoided audit / escape costs. They will challenge savings, headcount assumptions, and payback periods.
- Program Management / Contract Management: Important where customer contracts explicitly reference AS9102, Net-Inspect, or customer-specific FAI formats. They can articulate schedule risk, penalties, and customer satisfaction impacts.
Supply chain and supplier management
- Procurement / Supply Chain: Needed if the software changes how you accept or require FAIs from suppliers, or if you plan to push a portal or standard onto the supply base. They manage supplier onboarding burden and communications.
- Key Suppliers (in some models): If you expect suppliers to use the tool directly, you may need early champions or at least pilots with representative suppliers to validate feasibility and overhead.
Why support must span multiple systems and functions
In most brownfield aerospace plants, FAI activity is already split across several systems and manual processes: CAD/PLM for drawings and models, document control for released specs, MES/ERP for routings and part data, QMS for nonconformances, and various spreadsheets or Net-Inspect for FAI records. A dedicated AS9102 solution rarely replaces all of these.
Instead, it must coexist and integrate, which introduces:
- Integration dependencies: Stakeholders must agree where part and revision data originates, how characteristics are synchronized, and how FAI status is visible to planning, scheduling, and quality release.
- Validation and change control: Because FAI evidence is often used in audits and customer reviews, the software and its integrations typically require documented validation, configuration management, and ongoing change control. This affects Quality, IT, and Operations jointly.
- Limited appetite for full replacement: Replacing MES, PLM, or QMS purely to improve FAIs is rarely feasible in regulated aerospace due to qualification burden, downtime risk, and integration complexity. A focused AS9102 tool usually has to fit into the existing stack rather than drive wholesale replacement.
Practical governance for the business case
In practice, a credible AS9102 software business case often benefits from:
- A cross-functional core team: Typically led by Quality, with Manufacturing Engineering, IT/Architecture, and Operations represented.
- Defined decision makers vs. influencers: Clarity on who approves budget (often Quality + Finance + IT), who defines functional requirements (Quality Engineering / FAI owners), and who can veto on integration or security grounds (IT/Security).
- Pilot-oriented scope: Starting with a subset of parts, programs, or value streams to quantify benefits and surface integration/validation issues before committing plant-wide.
Which specific titles are required will vary by company size and maturity, but if your case does not have explicit buy-in from Quality leadership, Manufacturing/Engineering, IT, and Finance, it is unlikely to move forward or sustain in a regulated aerospace environment.
