The Systems Approach: Why Siloed Data is the Biggest Threat to MRO Efficiency

In our previous post, we established the MRO facility as an information-intensive factory where the product is airworthiness. We identified the primary bottlenecks in the manual, sequential process of defining, packaging, executing, and certifying work. The question remains: why has this operational friction become so deeply embedded in aviation maintenance?

The persistent inefficiency we see in MRO is not a failure of technology, but a failure of organizational design. The greatest barrier to improved throughput and reduced operational risk is the deep-seated issue of departmental silos, born from decades of failing to adopt a true Systems Approach to maintenance.

A system is defined by the interaction between its parts, not by the actions of its parts in isolation. In MRO, the departments act in isolation, meaning the process i.e., the flow of work that crosses departmental lines, is always compromised.

Photo by 鱼鱼 on Unsplash

The Myth of Local Optimization

Every department in an airline or MRO organization is structured for local optimization. Technical Records strives for perfect audit compliance. Planning aims to maximize hangar time utilization. Logistics fights to minimize inventory holding costs. In isolation, each department succeeds in its own metric.

The problem, however, is that optimizing one small part of the process inevitably sabotages the entire system.

I saw this play out repeatedly over my career: the pursuit of perfection in one silo creates gridlock in the next. The Parts Kitting process from our previous discussion is the perfect example. Logistics might delay sending a kit to the hangar until they have 100% of the parts to optimize their handling cost and minimize the risk of partial deliveries. But that conscious delay, which saves Logistics a few minutes of handling time, causes the maintenance technician (the Cat A or B Certifier) to wait for hours, grounding a multi-million-dollar aircraft and incurring massive operational costs elsewhere. The local optimization in Logistics becomes a systemic failure for the MRO factory, costing the airline significant revenue.

The maintenance organization is not a collection of independent units; it is a single system designed to keep an asset flying safely and profitably. Digitalization is the necessary framework to force this systemic alignment.

The Human and Organizational Cost of Silos

The friction points in MRO are rarely technological; they are organizational, and they can be defined by four major functional divisions that historically operate in isolation:

1. Planning vs. Technical Records (The Forward-Looking vs. The Past)

Planning needs to know the precise, current configuration of the aircraft to correctly schedule tasks and apply mandates. Technical Records holds the historical truth: every repair, every part change, every flight hour recorded. This divide introduces massive data latency.

In a siloed environment:

Planning is always behind: Planners often use data that is days or even weeks old. The latency exists because the certifier’s final signoff documents must be manually audited, transcribed, and then uploaded to the M&E system by Technical Records. This lag is unavoidable in a paper-based or fragmented digital workflow.
The Unspoken Risk: This time lag introduces an unspoken risk, the possibility of launching an aircraft on a work package based on configuration data that is already obsolete. Imagine a Life-Limited Part (LLP) was replaced during an unscheduled overnight stop. If that vital data isn’t fully processed and reflected in the Planning system, the next heavy check work package might incorrectly schedule an inspection for a component that has just been certified as new. While Quality Assurance (QA) catches these problems post-facto, the risk exists the moment the aircraft leaves the hangar, resulting in wasted labour, missed deadlines, and regulatory exposure. This is why data integrity is not an IT issue but rather it is a safety and business issue.

2. Technical Data vs. The Technicians (The Manual vs. The Reality)

The Technical Data department manages the thousands of revisions to the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Service Bulletins (SBs), and Component Maintenance Manuals (CMMs). The technician on the floor executes the work.

When these are siloed:

The Search Waste: As we discussed, a technician encounters an unexpected fault, puts down the tool, and starts searching physical manuals or disconnected digital viewers. This non-value-added time is a direct cost to throughput. Studies confirm that up to 20% of a technician's time can be spent on this search and validation process alone.
The Cultural Barrier: When documentation is hard to access, technicians develop efficient, necessary workarounds based on experience. While this showcases great skill and resilience, these informal workarounds bypass official data capture methods, creating gaps in the maintenance record that only amplify the data problem later in Technical Records. We must empower the technician with easy, dynamic data access, not rely on them to be human data conduits trying to reconcile paper with digital truth. The difficulty of compliance encourages shortcuts, and shortcuts are the enemy of auditability.

3. Maintenance Control vs. Everyone Else (The Firefighter vs. The Planner)

Maintenance Control (MCC) manages the immediate, unscheduled demands of the fleet, the snags, the immediate defect rectification, and the day-to-day operational triage and AOG recovery. They are the firefighters. Everyone else is a mid-term or long-term planner.

When the two don't share real-time data:

The Double Entry Headache: A simple deferred defect logged in the MCC’s tracking system is also manually entered into the Planning and M&E systems. This duplication wastes hundreds of hours per week and is an unnecessary source of data discrepancies. I have seen uncountable hours dedicated solely to reconciling the data between these two systems after overnight checks on each fleet, a pure cost activity created by siloed data flows.
The Lack of Context: Planning schedules a major task, unaware that the aircraft experienced a minor, high-frequency fault on its last two flights. If the planner had that real-time MCC data, they could pre-emptively kit the tools and parts needed for the common snag, eliminating waste and proactively boosting efficiency.

4. Logistics/Supply Chain vs. Base Maintenance (The Inventory Conflict)

This silo embodies the classic conflict between cost control and throughput. Logistics is incentivized to minimize inventory (to reduce holding costs), while Maintenance is incentivized to have every part immediately available (to reduce TAT).

The ‘Cannibalization’ Ripple Effect: When a critical part is not available for a major check (due to Logistics cost-saving measures) or defect rectification at line, Base Maintenance is often forced to cannibalize that part from an aircraft that is currently sitting waiting or is scheduled for a lesser check. This action, often called robbing, while solving an immediate problem, triggers a massive ripple of new administrative and physical work, disrupting the next planned maintenance event.
The Hidden Labor Cost: Every time a logistics decision (e.g., waiting for bulk shipping savings) causes a delay, the cost is transferred directly to the labour cost in the hangar. You pay skilled technicians to stand idle, waiting for the component that should have been proactively delivered. This systemic failure highlights why optimizing the total cost of ownership for the fleet must supersede the local optimization of the spare parts budget.

Digitalization is the Systems Approach

The solution to the MRO’s chronic inefficiency is not to create more advanced technology for each individual silo, but to dissolve the informational walls between them. The promise of digitalization is not just faster signoffs; it’s the realization of a true Maintenance Systems Approach.

This approach demands that all elements of the process are integrated, sharing a single, common dataset:

The Single Source of Truth: Technical data (AMM revisions), aircraft configuration (LLP status), inventory status (part location and quantity), and historical records must reside in one integrated system, accessible by every department simultaneously. This eliminates the "waiting for transcription" lag.
Continuous Data Flow: Data is captured once, at the point of action (by the technician/certifier on a tablet), and flows instantly and automatically into Technical Records and Planning. The system automatically updates the aircraft’s configuration status and simultaneously generates the required compliance record. The latency barrier is eliminated entirely.
Optimization for the Asset: Decisions are optimized for the overall performance of the aircraft (safety, compliance, and flight availability) rather than the local efficiency of a single department (low inventory cost or maximizing planner utilization). Digital tools must provide the visibility for leaders to make these holistic, systemic trade-offs.

The ultimate point of digital transformation is to align every person and every process around one goal: the maximized airworthiness of the asset. The cost of silos is measured in delayed aircraft, wasted labour, avoidable risk, and squandered capacity. Moving to an integrated digital system is simply the necessary evolution of operations management in aviation.

Endnotes

Sensus Aero. (2025). Bridging Organizational Silos in MRO. Retrieved from Sensus Aero
EmpowerMX via Aviation Pros. (2025). Experts Advise MROs on New Systems for Profitability and Productivity. Retrieved from AviationPros
Intoware. (2025). Digitalisation: The Future of MRO. Retrieved from Intoware
Ramco Systems. (2025). Smart MRO: The Digital Revolution in Aviation, Aerospace & Defense. Retrieved from Ramco
EmpowerMX via Aviation Pros. (2025). Experts Advise MROs on New Systems for Profitability and Productivity. Retrieved from AviationPros
IATA. (2025). Digital Aircraft Operations. Retrieved from IATA