1. Introduction & Purpose

This Program Management Plan describes how the CWP-700 Composite Wing Panel Production Program will be executed, monitored, and controlled. It is the integrating document across every specialized artifact in this suite — the Program Charter, Program Budget, Resource Plan, RAIDD Log, and Program Governance Model each cover one discipline in depth; this plan is what ties them together and states how they interact. Where a specialized document and this plan overlap, the specialized document is authoritative for its own domain (e.g., the Program Budget is authoritative for dollar figures, not this plan).

2. Program Overview

Acme Aerostructures, a Tier 1 supplier, is delivering composite trailing-edge wing panels to Meridian Aircraft Co. for the Meridian M7 narrowbody aircraft under an 18-month fixed-price production contract: Phase 1 (6 months, Qualification & First Article) and Phase 2 (12 months, Production Ramp & Steady-State). Full program scope, objectives, and business case are defined in the Program Charter.

3. Program Management Approach

This program follows a stage-gated approach appropriate to regulated aerospace production: each phase transition is governed by a formal gate (Critical Design Review, Tooling Qualification, First Article Inspection) rather than a purely iterative or agile cadence, since physical tooling and FAI cannot be revisited cheaply the way a software sprint can. Within phases, work is tracked against the Work Breakdown Structure, with weekly internal status reviews and monthly joint reviews with Meridian.

Day-to-day execution follows a plan-do-check-act cadence at the work-package level: the Program Manager and Manufacturing Engineer review WBS progress against baseline every Monday, quality metrics (FAI status, MRB backlog, NDT queue) are reviewed at the bi-weekly Quality Review Board, and any variance exceeding 5% of a phase's planned duration triggers a documented recovery plan rather than a passive schedule slip. This cadence is deliberately lighter-weight than the Federal or PM suites' governance model, reflecting a single-customer commercial production contract rather than a multi-stakeholder program.

4. Scope Management

Scope is defined by Meridian's baselined engineering drawings and specifications, established at the Critical Design Review gate. Any change to form, fit, or function requires a Meridian-approved Engineering Change Notice (ECN) — see Section 14. In-scope and out-of-scope boundaries are defined in the Program Charter §3.

Scope verification happens at two points: internally, at each MRB disposition and FAI sign-off, where Manufacturing Engineering confirms the delivered characteristic matches the baselined drawing; and externally, at Meridian source inspection, which is the only party with authority to accept scope on the customer's behalf. There is no formal scope-creep tolerance on this program the way a services engagement might have a change-order buffer — any unbudgeted scope change flows through Engineering Change Management (Section 14) and, if it has cost impact, the Change Control Log.

5. Schedule Management

The program schedule is maintained in the Work Breakdown Structure (79 line items across 2 phases). Key gates and their approval authority are defined in the Program Governance Model §8 (Stage Gates). Schedule status is reported weekly internally and monthly to Meridian via the Steering Deck.

The Milestone Gate structure (Critical Design Review, Tooling Qualification, First Article Inspection Accepted, Production Release Authorization) is the schedule's critical path — a slip to any gate date requires Program Manager escalation to the Executive Sponsor per the Program Charter's authority section, not just an internal replan. Phase 2's ongoing production tasks (composite layup, in-process inspection, MRB case management) are tracked as continuous work streams against a target production rate rather than discrete finish dates, consistent with how steady-state manufacturing schedules differ from one-time build-out schedules.

6. Cost Management

The program's total budget is $9,284,000 — corrected from an original $3,500,000 estimate once real two-shift production staffing needs became clear (RAIDD D-05), then grown again once Meridian's Purchase Order Amendment PA-002 added a third production shift (RAIDD D-06). Full budget detail, the labor rate card, and the Program Management Reserve are maintained in the Program Budget. This is a fixed-unit-price contract with Meridian; internal cost tracking against that fixed price is how Acme manages its own margin, not a figure reported line-item to the customer.

Cost is tracked monthly against the category-level baseline in the Program Budget (labor, tooling/fixtures NRE, materials, travel, reserve), with the Program Manager authorized to approve variance within the Program Management Reserve and any reserve drawdown beyond 50% requiring Executive Sponsor notification per the Program Governance Model's escalation thresholds. The Program Cost-Benefit Analysis and Total Cost of Ownership pages provide the investment-justification and multi-year views this plan itself does not restate.

7. Quality Management

Quality is managed under Acme's corporate AS9100 Quality Management System. Key quality gates and processes:

• First Article Inspection (FAI) — full dimensional/material verification of the first production unit, requiring Meridian source-inspection witness and acceptance (see First Article Inspection).
• Material Review Board (MRB) — cross-functional disposition of nonconformances (use-as-is, rework, scrap, return-to-supplier); see the Material Review Board log.
• Supplier PPAP qualification — every raw-material and tooling supplier is qualified before use; see Section 12.
• AS9100 QMS — corporate quality system documentation and internal audit function; see the AS9100 QMS page.

8. Configuration & Traceability Management

Every panel is marked with part number, serial number, and lot-traceable material batch code per Meridian's engineering specification, maintained from raw material receipt through delivery. This traceability backbone is what allows any nonconformance to be traced back to a specific unit and material lot — the same traceability the Material Review Board log depends on. Configuration changes to drawings, specs, or tooling follow the Engineering Change Management process in Section 14.

Tooling itself carries its own configuration record — each fixture is uniquely numbered and its calibration/qualification status tracked, so a nonconformance can be traced to a specific tool as well as a specific material lot (as happened with MRB-004's layup fixture wear finding). This dual traceability — part/material and tooling — is what let the preventive-maintenance corrective action from LL-04 be scoped precisely rather than applied blanket across all fixtures.

9. Resource Management

The program's delivery team stands at 50 people across three shifts, corrected from an original 14-person, single-shift estimate once real steady-state production needs became clear (RAIDD Decision D-05) — the original estimate had only 3 layup technicians on one shift, one NDT resource, and no dedicated Autoclave/Cure, Trim & Drill, Document Control, or EHS roles. The team grew again, from 25 to 50, once Meridian's Purchase Order Amendment PA-002 added a third production shift (RAIDD Decision D-06) — genuine customer-driven demand growth, not a repeat correction. Full roster, rates, and phase allocation are maintained in the Resource Plan; reporting lines are shown in the Organizational Chart.

Each of the three production shifts is staffed as a self-contained unit (Layup, Autoclave/Cure, Trim & Drill, NDT Level II, Quality Inspection), so a single shift can run FAI-to-delivery inspection without cross-shift handoff gaps. Cross-training exists for MRB voting membership (a Quality Inspector is cross-trained as backup MRB voting member, per the Governance Model's succession planning) but not for the more specialized NDT and Autoclave/Cure roles, which is a known single-point-of-failure risk tracked as RAIDD R-06.

10. Communications Management

Internal and customer-facing communication cadences, channels, and escalation contacts are defined in the Communications Plan. Standing forums (Program Status Review, Quality Review Board, Joint Program Review with Meridian) are summarized in the Program Governance Model §5.

Contractual nonconformance notification to Meridian (a 24-hour window for any major/structural finding) is documented in the Communications Plan and enforced through the MRB escalation path — this was itself a lessons-learned finding (LL-09) after the requirement wasn't written down until mid-program. Routine (non-urgent) communication follows the cadence table in the Communications Plan; nothing safety- or schedule-critical waits for a scheduled forum.

11. Risk Management

All risks, assumptions, issues, dependencies, and decisions are tracked in a single RAIDD Log, scored 1–9 (Low/Medium/High × likelihood/impact). Escalation authority by risk score is defined in the Program Governance Model §10.

Risks scoring 7-9 (High) require a documented response strategy and Program Manager ownership at minimum, with Executive Sponsor visibility; the program's highest-rated risk at any point (single-source prepreg material, R-01, scored 9) drove a formal dual-sourcing decision (D-03) rather than passive monitoring. The register is reviewed and re-scored at every Quality Review Board and Program Status Review, not just when a new risk is identified.

12. Supplier & Procurement Management

Raw-material and tooling suppliers are qualified via Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) prior to use, with quarterly performance reviews. The program's single-source composite prepreg material (RAIDD R-01) is the subject of an approved dual-sourcing initiative (RAIDD Decision D-03) to reduce lead-time risk. Supplier governance and decision authority are defined in the Program Governance Model §7.

Supplier Quality Engineering owns the PPAP qualification process end to end — material certification review, first-lot inspection, and the standing quarterly performance review cadence — with authority to place a supplier on hold status for a failed PPAP submission without escalating to the Program Manager. Only a full supplier disqualification or dual-source qualification decision (like D-03) requires Program Manager and, where cost-impacting, Executive Sponsor approval.

13. Customer Stakeholder Engagement

Meridian Aircraft Co.'s Program Office holds real, contractual acceptance authority over First Article Inspection and major/structural MRB dispositions — not just an informed stakeholder role. Engagement cadence (monthly Joint Program Review, ad hoc source inspection coordination) is defined in the Program Governance Model §5 and §7.

Meridian's source inspection representative is scheduled 30 days ahead of any FAI or major MRB event (see RAIDD DEP-01) rather than coordinated reactively — a discipline adopted directly from an early-program lessons-learned finding (LL-08) after the first such coordination happened too close to the actual event date.

14. Engineering Change Management

Any change affecting form, fit, or function requires a Meridian-approved Engineering Change Notice (ECN) against the baselined drawing or spec — this is a Tier 3 governance decision regardless of cost impact, since it touches the customer's own engineering baseline. Acme-internal process or tooling changes not affecting form/fit/function are governed at Tier 1/2 per the Program Governance Model §3 and don't require an ECN. Every change, at every tier, is logged in the Change Control Log.

Each logged change carries a named owner and, where applicable, a target implementation date, so the log can be audited for aging or stalled changes rather than just serving as a historical record. Of the 8 changes logged to date, 3 are engineering changes requiring Meridian's own approval and 5 are Acme-internal — see the Change Control Log for the full breakdown by category.

15. Governance & Decision Authority

Full decision-rights tiering, escalation thresholds, and the Program Review Board roster are defined in the Program Governance Model — the authoritative reference this plan defers to rather than duplicating.

16. Lessons Learned & Continuous Improvement

Lessons from this program — including the NDT staffing miscalibration that drove RAIDD Decision D-05 — are captured in the Lessons Learned register as they occur, not only at closeout, so later phases (and future programs) can benefit from a mid-course correction rather than repeating it.

Each of the 10 entries in the register is traced back to a specific risk, issue, or MRB case rather than written generically after the fact — a discipline meant to keep the register useful for the next composite production program, not just a compliance artifact for this one. The Program Manager reviews open lessons at each Quality Review Board to confirm the recommended action has actually been adopted, not just documented.

17. Assumptions, Constraints & Dependencies

• Meridian's engineering source data is final and baselined at contract start; no major spec changes assumed during Phase 1.
• Composite autoclave capacity at the Acme facility is sufficient for the planned Phase 2 production rate without additional capital investment.
• Raw-material suppliers will deliver PPAP submissions on the agreed schedule.
• The corrected 50-person team, once fully ramped across three shifts, remains available at planned allocation through the full Phase 2 production ramp.

18. Baselines Summary

19. Approval

This Program Management Plan is approved for use across the CWP-700 Composite Wing Panel Production Program.