Test organizations in the aerospace and defense industry must continually balance their needs for test coverage, project schedule, and budget. To satisfy these competing demands, they customize their solutions to fully control timelines and technical risk, but this comes at a cost. They ultimately must choose between running over budget, paying overtime, committing more resources to a problem, or postponing needed test system upgrades to try to meet project deadlines.
The least attractive choice for these organizations is compromising on test coverage and living with the possibility that they missed something or released an inferior product. This constant tension has been the status quo of the aerospace and defense industry, and, though it’s not ideal, it has inspired remarkable successes. The industry’s positive track record begs the question, “If it’s not broken, why fix it?” But the industry should ask, “Is this approach sustainable?”
As customers demand new technology in modern aircraft, trends like electrification take deeper hold, and companies continue to see value in international talent that requires global development sites, aerospace and defense organizations need to determine whether the status quo is the right choice for a future of growth. The ability to modernize test and design cycle approaches with standardized test architectures, more emulation and simulation, and new and improved systems and data management tools is the difference between thriving with a sustainable competitive advantage and struggling to survive. Organizations can standardize test by using the same technology and tools across the development cycle and across applications and job sites.