The Engineering vs. Quality Standoff: The Path to Collaboration With AS9100

Engineering Changes in AS9100: Getting Engineers and Quality on the Same Page

It’s a tale as old as the standard. Confrontations between engineering and Quality are among the largest sources of friction within aerospace organizations. Engineers are saddled with solving problems and updating designs while Quality hones configuration control, traceability, and risk. It’s undeniable that both are integral to the performance of a product in the market, yet the two disciplines clash under different assumptions of what “small” and “simple” actually mean for whatever they’re manufacturing. AS9100 tries to bridge the gap by establishing a shared vocabulary and framework for handling any and all changes in a controlled, predictable way.

The standard gives engineering changes more significance than design edits. It treats engineering changes as potential risk events. It suggests that anything from a new dimension, a different material, or a tweaked tolerance has the potential to radically change everything down the line. This cautious ideology intends to force conversations between the two departments early, before unapproved prints or outdated instructions reach the floor and endanger product and consumer safety.

Where Engineering and Quality Drift Out of Sync

Within most organizations, the usual disconnect isn’t about disagreement. It’s about perspective. Engineers are conditioned to see designs as fluid, something to constantly question and optimize to stay in pace with competitive markets. Quality observes the design as a contract between their organization and the standard. 

When engineering spurs change, it’s understandable that quality teams can feel late to the party, left to catch up on the bureaucratic steps that enable progress. Engineers, on the other hand, may feel hindered by formal review cycles that seem exhaustive despite the perceived size of the change.

AS9100 positions both views as fragments of a whole. The standard expects a unified approach where design intent and configuration discipline coexist.

What AS9100 Actually Requires

To alleviate stress, AS9100 puts its formal expectations into writing. It states that organizations are directly responsible for establishing a change control process that evaluates every engineering change for its effects on form, fit, function, safety, and overall regulatory compliance. The evaluation must occur before any sort of change is released to be implemented. It must also be documented with transparency in mind- enough transparency that anyone could understand what changed and why for any one update.

The easiest and most efficient way to confirm your compliance with these responsibilities is to get a professional on-site. APEX QA’s auditor rolodex has auditors and consultants all over the nation, helping you save money on transport whenever you may need it.

The standard also demands preemptive cross-functional reviews. Engineering can propose change, but quality validates the risk, operations confirms feasibility, and supply chain assesses external impact. The end-goal should represent unity. When each group handles a similar change through different lenses, more gaps and errors appear before they hit the manufacturing floor.

The Most Simple Way to Align Both Teams

Employed by the best manufacturers, one of the most effective habits to reduce friction between the two groups is the treatment of engineering change as a risk conversation. Instead of asking how quickly the change can be released, quality should ask engineering what could be affected. 

This mindset creates shared ownership. Engineering owns the technical reasoning and troubleshooting know-how to bolster the conversation. Quality owns the compliance safeguards, allowing theoretical changes to be reflected in real-world compliance.

How Strong Configuration Control Supports Both Groups

Well-managed configuration control gives engineering the confidence that their changes are implemented exactly as intended. It gives quality the confidence that nothing has slipped through their processes undocumented. It also delivers a single source of truth from a unified front. Production, purchasing, and suppliers never take this kind of transparency and responsibility for granted.

The easiest way to address the disconnect is by enrolling your Engineers in quality training. APEX QA offers internal auditor training that can get your team on the page within the week. Available online and in-person, APEX ensures that everyone who leaves the classroom is equipped with the learning they need to take their career forward.

When configuration control is weak, both groups slow down. When configuration control is strong, the system does the heavy lifting, and collaboration becomes natural instead of reactive.

Final Thoughts

AS9100’s approach to engineering changes isn’t about adding more layers of bureaucracy. It’s an opportunity for engineers and quality professionals to build a common foundation for evaluating risk from the ground up. 

When both groups treat engineering changes and the preservation of quality as a shared responsibility, their organization gains tighter control, fewer surprises, and a more predictable flow of work.