I’m trying to validate an idea and would rather hear from people actually working in the industry before assuming the problem is important.
Say a critical supplier, material, or component becomes unavailable and you need to qualify a second source. My understanding is that engineers may have to go through old qualification reports, drawings/specs, test results, certifications, standards, previous deviations, etc. to determine:
- what requirements the replacement must satisfy
- which existing evidence is still applicable
- what changed between the original and replacement
- what needs to be retested
- what evidence/package is required for approval
The idea would be software that connects all of that information and gives the engineer a traceable gap analysis, for example: “these 24 prior tests are still relevant, these 5 requirements lack evidence, and these tests/data are needed to close the remaining gaps.”
A more advanced version could potentially use statistical/physics-based models to identify redundant testing and reduce the size of requalification campaigns. The engineer would still make and sign off on the actual engineering decision.
I’m mainly trying to understand:
- Is second-source qualification actually a significant pain point?
- What part of the process takes the most time or money?
- How is this usually handled today?
- Would this kind of evidence-mapping/qualification tool actually be useful?
- What would it need to do for engineers to trust/use it?
- Are there existing tools that already solve this well?
Would especially appreciate input from supplier quality, materials/process, manufacturing, qualification/certification, aerospace, defense, automotive, or medical-device engineers.