Taming the Digital Toolchain: Configuration Management in a System of Systems World
Defence capability no longer depends solely on the performance of individual platforms. Increasingly, capability is shaped by how well digital systems, tools, and data environments interoperate across engineering, procurement, logistics, and operations. As modern forces transition to integrated, multi-domain capability structures, the digital toolchain that supports these activities has become its own System of Systems.
In this environment, Configuration Management (CM) must evolve. The challenge is no longer just maintaining well-controlled baselines for a single system. It is maintaining coherence across a digital ecosystem that spans PLM tools, MBSE frameworks, ERP and procurement systems, digital twin environments, and downstream sustainment data repositories. When these tools cannot interoperate, capability cannot integrate.
This article explores the growing complexity of the Defence digital environment, the consequences of tool fragmentation, and how CM can provide the governance that binds disparate systems into a coordinated, traceable, and auditable digital thread.
The Digital Ecosystem as a System of Systems
In modern Defence acquisition, the toolchain used across the lifecycle commonly includes:
PLM/PDM tools such as Windchill, Teamcenter, or Dassault Enovia
MBSE environments such as Cameo, Rhapsody, Enterprise Architect
Requirements management systems such as DOORS or Jama
Procurement and ERP systems such as SAP, Oracle, TechnologyOne, IFS
Drafting and design tools such as Creo, SolidWorks, CATIA
Software CM tools such as GitLab, Bitbucket, ClearCase
Logistics and sustainment systems such as LSAR/SLM platforms
Enterprise data governance tools for classification, storage, and workflow control
Each of these tools is an independent system with its own data structures, authorities, version control rules, and update cycles. Together, they form a System of Systems, where the output of one becomes the input of another.
The Interoperability Problem
Every organisation wants a seamless digital thread, but very few achieve it. The reality is that defence industry and government programs often operate with:
Multiple vendors
Different legacy and new-generation systems
Inconsistent data models
Competing interface standards
Security and air-gapped network restrictions
This leads to a range of predictable problems.
Duplicate or divergent data across systems
A part number modified in Windchill might not match the version held in SAP. A requirement updated in DOORS might not be reflected in the MBSE model. A procurement system may reference an obsolete configuration.
This creates:
Rework
Conflicting documentation
Increased verification burden
Loss of configuration control
According to the US GAO (2021), more than 40 percent of defence programs surveyed experienced rework or delay due to data inconsistency across digital tools.
Breaks in the digital thread
The digital thread is intended to be the continuous lineage of configuration information from initial concept through disposal. Tool fragmentation breaks this thread, making it impossible to definitively answer questions like:
Which model version corresponds to which design?
Which manufactured batch used which revision?
What requirement drove this design feature?
When the digital thread breaks, CM cannot guarantee provenance.
Manual handling and “swivel-chair integration”
When tools cannot interoperate, people become the interface. Engineers manually copy data between systems. CM teams reconcile mismatched lists. Procurement teams re-enter part properties.
This increases cycle time and introduces avoidable human error.
Incomplete change impact analysis
If systems are not connected, no tool can reliably map a change across the entire ecosystem. This often leads to:
Late identification of impacts
Contract variations
Technical debt
Redesign during testing
Mission-level integration risks
Asynchronous updates create baseline drift
If an MBSE model is updated but the PLM system is not, or if procurement modifies a BOM without updating design artefacts, then baseline alignment is lost.
Baseline drift remains one of the most common causes of schedule and cost overruns in defence acquisition
Why Configuration Management Must Adapt
Traditional CM processes assume a single authoritative repository per configuration item. In a digital SoS, this is no longer realistic. Instead, CM must govern relationships, interfaces, and digital handoffs between tools.
Here are the areas where CM must take the lead.
Defining tool-of-record responsibilities
In a fragmented environment, every data element must have a source of truth. For example:
The PLM system may be the only authoritative location for part attributes.
The MBSE model may be the authoritative source for interface definitions.
The procurement system may be the authoritative source for vendor data.
CM must define this in policy and enforce it through governance.
Governing the digital thread and data lineage
CM should ensure:
Every configuration item has a controlled identity across all tools
Every system receiving data from another system records version identifiers
Changes propagate through all downstream systems
Interface mappings remain consistent as tools evolve
This is the equivalent of “inter-system CM”, and it becomes essential in large defence programs.
Supporting multi-tool change management
A single change request may touch:
Requirements (DOORS)
System architecture (Cameo)
CAD assemblies (Creo)
BOMs (Windchill, SAP)
Procurement orders (SAP, IFS)
Test cases (Jira, TestRail)
CM must:
Ensure tools stay aligned
Enforce sequencing rules
Prevent premature updates
Guarantee consistent identifiers
This is a major evolution of the traditional change control role.
Air Force Digital Engineering Transformation
When the United States Air Force (USAF) committed to a digital engineering approach for next-generation aircraft, it expected improved speed, integration, and lifecycle traceability. Instead, early assessments revealed a much broader challenge: the Air Force’s digital ecosystem had effectively become its own System of Systems, with significant interoperability and configuration control issues.
Across major programs, USAF engineers and contractors were using over 100 independent digital tools spanning PLM, MBSE, CAD, simulation, ERP, logistics, and software development environments. These tools rarely interworked, and no single repository held authoritative configuration data. According to the USAF Digital Engineering Strategy, this fragmentation created “disconnected models, inconsistent baselines, and a lack of coherent digital thread across the lifecycle” (USAF, 2018).
The Government Accountability Office also reported that data inconsistencies and tool misalignment contributed to rework, schedule delays, and verification issues across several major defence acquisition programs (GAO-21-226, 2021). In one documented case, a design change implemented in a PLM system was not reflected in the corresponding MBSE model or procurement data, leading to incorrect hardware being ordered and extensive redesign during integration testing.
Suppliers amplified the issue. Each major contractor used its own PLM or CAD environment, creating what the Air Force described as “digital islands” that lacked shared configuration identifiers, consistent data schemas, or standard update mechanisms (USAF Digital Campaign, 2020). Without common governance, the digital thread was routinely broken.
The turning point came when USAF leadership reframed the ecosystem itself as a System of Systems. Interfaces between tools – including APIs, data schemas, exchange formats, ETL scripts, and semantic models – were placed under configuration control. The Air Force adopted a “tool-of-record” model defining authoritative data sources, and established cross-tool baseline alignment practices, model audits, and synchronisation events to maintain digital coherence (USAF Digital Transformation Office, 2021).
These reforms produced measurable improvements. Programs reported earlier defect detection, reduced integration bottlenecks, and improved supplier alignment. Most importantly, the Air Force demonstrated that digital engineering succeeds only when supported by robust, enterprise-level Configuration Management.
The USAF’s experience highlights a key lesson for all defence organisations: digital tools alone do not create a digital thread. Interoperability must be engineered, governed, and baselined, with CM acting as the coordinating discipline that binds the digital enterprise together.
Approaches to Achieving Interoperability
Achieving meaningful interoperability across PLM, MBSE, procurement, and other digital engineering tools requires a deliberate shift toward enterprise-level data coherence. The first step is establishing a clear data architecture that defines how information is structured, identified, and governed across the organisation. This includes consistent naming conventions, authoritative sources of truth for each class of data, and shared metadata frameworks. Without this foundation, no amount of technical integration will produce a stable digital thread.
Rather than tightly coupling every tool, many defence organisations instead adopt a federation model. In this approach, each system retains its own internal data structures, but publishes standardised views or interfaces that other tools can consume. This reduces fragility, supports future tool replacement, and avoids the cascading failures common in rigid point-to-point integrations. Increasingly, MBSE plays a central role in this federated landscape by providing a model-based map of relationships, constraints, and dependencies between tools, which CM teams can then govern as part of the broader baseline.
In more complex environments, PLM platforms often serve as the integration backbone, managing identities, design artefacts, and the relationships between models, drawings, BOMs, and downstream manufacturing or sustainment data. By positioning PLM as the anchor point of the digital ecosystem, organisations can link ERP, procurement, CAD, MBSE, and logistics environments in a traceable and controlled manner. Complementing this are open standards such as STEP AP242, OSLC, and S1000D, which provide common languages for exchanging information between otherwise incompatible tools.
Together, these approaches demonstrate that interoperability is not simply a technical challenge, but a governance challenge. It depends on disciplined CM processes, clear ownership of digital information, and a willingness to treat the digital toolchain itself as a System of Systems that must be baselined, controlled, and continuously aligned across its lifecycle.
The Future of CM: Digital Integration Management and Beyond
As defence organisations shift toward integrated, data-driven capability development, the role of Configuration Management is expanding from a system-level control function to a strategic discipline responsible for governing the entire digital ecosystem. The tools that shape capability throughout its life PLM, MBSE, CAD, ERP, procurement, and sustainment databases form a complex System of Systems in their own right. Their interoperability is now just as critical as the interoperability of the platforms they support.
Future programs will amplify this complexity. Systems will become more software-defined, more distributed, and more reliant on supplier ecosystems. Digital twins, AI-assisted engineering tools, and model-based enterprises will deepen dependencies across domains. Security constraints will continue to grow, and data governance requirements will tighten. In this environment, CM must evolve into Digital Integration Management, a discipline that assures configuration integrity not only within systems, but across the interconnected digital environments that design, procure, build, test, and sustain them.
This shift will see CM teams responsible for managing cross-tool data lineage, the semantic consistency of shared models, the coherence of digital threads, and the stability of enterprise-level integration patterns. CM will govern the interfaces that bind tools together, the identifiers that establish traceability, and the rules that allow organisations to introduce new technologies without losing digital coherence. CM will also play a key role in assuring the accuracy and auditability of real-time configuration states as platforms and tools become increasingly connected.
Ultimately, the success of digital engineering depends on CM’s ability to provide stable, governed, and transparent integration across the entire lifecycle. A connected enterprise cannot emerge from disconnected systems, just as an integrated force cannot emerge from disconnected platforms. Configuration Management becomes the unifying discipline that ensures every tool, every dataset, every model, and every decision aligns with the authorised baseline.
The future of capability development will belong to the organisations that master this discipline. Platforms will evolve, tools will change, and technologies will be replaced, but the need for coherent, governed, and interoperable configuration information will only grow. In the era of digital engineering and complex System of Systems environments, Configuration Management is not merely a support function. It is the backbone of integration, the guardian of data integrity, and the foundation upon which modern capability is built.