Rethinking Rework in Aerospace and Defense

Rethinking Rework in Aerospace and Defense

Every aerospace and defense program sets its sights on zero defects. The goal is essential, but anyone in the industry knows variation and unexpected challenges will always occur. That is why rework exists.

Unlike in less regulated industries, rework in aerospace and defense is not swept aside. Nothing slips through without a record. If a part is touched, there is paperwork, and everyone from regulators to customers expects that trail to be there.

The issue is not only that rework is documented. It is what happens with that information. In many organizations, rework records close a compliance loop, satisfy a certification requirement, or explain a cost variance. What often does not happen is the elevation of that data into production or design strategy. That is the missed opportunity. Closing that gap requires more than collecting NCRs (nonconformance reports). It takes systems that connect shop floor events to design, supplier, and program data in context.

Rework as Feedback

Test plans, simulations, and stress analyses all play their part. But the reality of production often shows things no model can fully predict. A batch of fasteners that meet spec may still behave differently across suppliers. A composite panel that passes inspection might show higher rework rates when certain layup methods are used. These signals are visible in rework logs long before they appear as failures in the field. When those logs are integrated with supplier and process data, they become early warning intelligence rather than isolated records.

Research backs this up. PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers) found that fewer than one-third of aerospace and defense companies systematically use rework and repair data to drive supplier or design improvements¹. ASQ (American Society for Quality) has noted the same issue, pointing out that while nonconformance reporting is thorough, feedback loops to engineering are inconsistent². The result: useful data is collected, but it does not always make its way into strategy. The difference comes down to whether repair records sit in a silo, or whether they feed into a connected digital thread that engineering and supply chain teams can act on.

The People Factor

Another piece of this is the people doing the rework. Aerospace and defense plants lean on welders, technicians, and engineers who know how to sort out problems others cannot. The trouble is, the workload is uneven. One month, they are overloaded, the next, they are waiting for the next major program. That kind of cycle wears people down.

That is where rework can help. It keeps teams busy and engaged during the slower cycles. About 20% of the aerospace workforce could be gone in five years³. Millions more jobs will sit empty by the end of the decade⁴. Losing the talent already in place would only make it worse. Structured digital repair processes can also capture knowledge from experienced workers, making it available to the next generation as they step in.

Sustainability and Compliance

Scrapping defective assemblies has never been the preferred option in aerospace and defense. Parts are too costly, lead times are too long, and oversight is too strict for that to be a routine path. In the past, however, some manufacturers could replace a defective unit with new material if the economics allowed. That is becoming harder to justify.

Governments are writing repairability into law⁵. Regulators are starting to look for design for repair practices. Customers are also asking more about recycling and reuse. Rework sits inside that conversation. When the source and the condition of a part are known, it becomes possible to decide whether it can go back into service or at least yield something useful. That is not just about compliance. It cuts waste and strengthens the sustainability metrics customers are now asking suppliers to demonstrate. That level of visibility depends on systems that trace material across its lifecycle, not just at the point of inspection.

The GAO (Government Accountability Office) has flagged this as well, pointing out that the lack of repair feedback into design is one of the reasons sustainment costs are so high in major defense programs⁶. This problem does not stop at the shop floor. It extends across programs and fleets.

Data as the Enabler

Capturing that kind of value takes systems. It is not enough for one engineer to remember that a weld cracked, or a fastener did not fit. The information must be tied back to design records, supplier data, and process history. This is where MES (Manufacturing Execution System) platforms make a difference. A good system does not just report what failed. It connects the dots. It shows that a certain supplier’s lot number leads to more repairs. Or that a particular machine program produces a subtle variation that only shows up at final assembly.

Without that connection, rework looks like noise. With it, rework becomes a map that points to weak spots in design, process, or supply chain. That map only exists when data from machines, materials, and processes is captured in one place and understood in context.

Strategy, Not Afterthought

Rework is not just about fixing parts. It can be a loop of feedback, a way to keep people sharp, and a step toward sustainability. It can even be a revenue opportunity. When rework is treated only as a compliance requirement, the same issues come back, costs climb, and customers lose patience. The opposite happens when rework data is used to drive engineering feedback, supplier improvement, and sustainment planning. Those organizations cut scrap and repeat failures, keep skilled people engaged, and build stronger reliability and customer trust.

The costs are not small. Internal failure costs like rework and scrap can eat up 4 to 6 percent of annual sales in aerospace and defense⁷. On the other side, aftermarket services such as repair and sustainment already account for nearly half of industry revenue⁸. Companies that stop at compliance miss both the chance to lower costs and the chance to win long-term service business. The ones that get ahead are those that use rework as part of a connected strategy, backed by data systems that support both production and sustainment.

Look over a few years, and the pattern is clear. The ones that treated rework as strategy got ahead. The ones who brushed it off fell behind.

Final Thoughts

Rework may never vanish in aerospace and defense. The systems are very complex, and the stakes are very high. What matters is the role leaders let rework play.

Treat it as cleanup, and it will keep draining money and morale. Handled as a strategy, rework can cut costs, support compliance, give engineers meaningful work, and create openings in service and sustainment. Yet in a lot of organizations, it still shows up only as a metric to be driven down, not as information that could shape design or supply. In others, it has become a driver of improvement. The difference comes down to leadership. Treat rework as part of the digital backbone, and it adds value. Keep it in silos and it keeps costing. That decision will shape both today’s margins and tomorrow’s position in the market.

Sources

1. PwC Aerospace & Defense “Cost of Quality” Analysis (2019)
2. ASQ Aerospace Division Cost of Quality Study (2020)
3. Aerospace Industries Association Workforce Study (2022)
4. Deloitte Manufacturing Workforce Report (2023)
5. EU Right-to-Repair Directive (2024); U.S. state-level right-to-repair legislation; DoD contract repairability provisions (2024–2025)
6. GAO Report: F-35 Sustainment: DOD Needs a Strategy to Address Growing Costs and Increasing Maintenance Issues (2022)
7. PwC Aerospace Manufacturing Benchmark (2019)
8. PwC Global Aerospace and Defense Outlook (2021)