Stephanie Fels

The method is to diagnose a specific operational cost, start with one workflow, one site or one team, and scale from there. Results are expressed as before-and-after numbers rather than feature descriptions.

Three customer examples from work with Connect 981: a global Tier 1 supplier spending about 20 minutes of admin on each of roughly 2,000 equipment receptions a year, reported as recovering 400+ hours annually from that step alone; a 30-site Tier 1 supplier with non-conformance data spread across spreadsheets, paper forms and email threads, reported as cutting non-conformance closure time by half; and a supplier handling around 4,000 purchase-order lines a year, reported as targeting 1,200 hours recovered annually after replacing email threads and manual ERP re-entry with a supplier collaboration portal connected to its existing ERP.

Read original · Original 2

When program status runs on email, spreadsheets and stand-ups, manufacturers face decision latency, not a visibility problem.

• With long lead times and serialized hardware, small unknowns can trigger multi-week recoveries.
• The post specifies what a shared operating picture must contain and where it typically breaks down in program reviews.

A shared operational picture must continuously track work-in-progress across assemblies, in-process quality risk down to serial numbers, and supplier readiness against critical paths—not just at meeting time.

• Program reviews surface three recurring failure points: status scattered across inboxes, leaving decision-makers to react instead of prevent; quality exceptions found late enough to force rework loops; and supplier risk flagged only after shortages hit the line.
• The proposed remedy is an execution layer that aggregates ERP, MES, quality records and supplier events into one shared operational truth.

Read original

A manual workflow that works at low volume becomes a governance exposure as rate, complexity or supplier handoffs increase. The key question is where decisions land, not whether non-conformances matter.

One missed disposition in a spreadsheet can cascade into weeks of rework, premium freight and an audit finding.

• The post identifies handoffs split across email, drives and separate workbooks that break traceability, and slow dispositions as engineering, production and suppliers chase updates instead of parts.
• The consequences include longer cycle times, recurring root causes that stay hidden, duplicated inspections, delayed shipments and weaker audit responses because evidence sits in pockets rather than in a provable thread tied to serial numbers and special-process records.
• It closes by calling for traceability and execution systems that put decisions on the floor, at the supplier gate and in engineering dispositions.

Read original · Original 2

The material treats Tier 1 operational problems and Tier 2 and Tier 3 traceability problems as related but supported by different evidence. Its consistent argument: supplier risk is usually discovered too late, when shortages reach the line.

A supplier handling 4,000 purchase-order lines a year was drowning in email threads, manual ERP re-entry and reactive firefighting.

• The case describes replacing that process with a structured supplier collaboration portal connected to the existing ERP, reportedly live in weeks.
• A separate visibility post lists supplier readiness against critical paths as one of three requirements for a shared operational picture, and identifies supplier risk flagged only after shortages hit the line as a recurring failure point.
• The space post adds that Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers still manage part genealogy on spreadsheets.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3

As launch cadence rises, Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers feeding the sector still manage part genealogy on spreadsheets, which the post frames as a liability rather than a documentation gap: a single nonconformance can ground a launch vehicle. It says the digital execution infrastructure Tier 1 aerospace OEMs adopted for AS9100 compliance is moving into space manufacturing faster than most quality teams are prepared for.

The demand signal cited is SpaceX completing 134 Falcon 9 launches in the prior year. The post links to a digital playbook for meeting these requirements with an AI workflow orchestration layer and invites people at Space Tech Expo USA in Anaheim to find the author and compare notes on getting operations audit-ready for the next contract cycle.

Read original · Original 2

The priorities are operational rather than novelty-driven, with compliance as a distinct theme.

For meetings at the Farnborough International Airshow with OEMs, Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers and MROs, the listed topics are manufacturing execution and operational excellence; quality and FAA/EASA and CMMC compliance; supplier performance and supply chain resilience; factory data integration across ERP, MES, PLM and other systems; and practical AI applications that improve productivity without disrupting existing operations.

• Product language makes a similar case, describing workflows as AI-built, real-time orchestration and live in one to two months.
• The post presents that timeline as a vendor claim; ask for evidence of deployments and results.

Read original · Original 2

A newcomer assessing its credibility should start here: the post shows the method through individual workflows and time costs.

The post argues that operations problems in aerospace manufacturing are usually solved by layering workflows on top of existing systems, not replacing them.

• Three customer examples make the case.
• A global Tier 1 supplier spent about 20 minutes of admin time on each of roughly 2,000 equipment receptions a year; the post reports recovering 400+ hours annually from that step alone.
• A 30-site Tier 1 supplier had non-conformance data spread across spreadsheets, paper forms and email threads, and audit preparation took weeks; the post reports that non-conformance closure time was cut by half after the data moved into one digital trail.
• An aerospace supplier handling around 4,000 purchase-order lines a year replaced email threads and manual re-entry with a supplier collaboration portal connected to its existing ERP, with a reported target of 1,200 hours a year.
• The common pattern: each started with one workflow, one site or one team.

For brands planning a campaign

This post offers ready-made problem framings for a software partner: ERP-adjacent workflow layering, non-conformance traceability, and supplier collaboration each map to a distinct piece of content or a co-authored case breakdown.

It gives a clear vocabulary for the problem before discussing any product.

The post distinguishes visibility from presentation.

• Its claim: when program status runs on email, spreadsheets and stand-ups, manufacturers face decision latency, not a lack of visibility.
• Long lead times and serialized hardware turn small unknowns into multi-week recoveries.
• A shared operating picture, it says, must cover work-in-progress across assemblies, in-process quality risk down to serial numbers, and supplier readiness against critical paths—continuously, not just at meeting time.
• The post lists three failure points from program reviews: status scattered across inboxes, leaving decision-makers to react instead of prevent; quality exceptions found late enough to force rework loops; and supplier risk flagged only once shortages hit the line.
• Another report won't fix these problems, the post concludes; an execution layer must aggregate ERP, MES, quality records and supplier events.

For brands planning a campaign

This post works as the conceptual opener for a partnership series: it frames the buying problem before naming tooling and offers a natural structure for a joint webinar or explainer on execution layers versus dashboards.

This post shows why it fails in practice and where the decision points sit—the practical detail a newcomer needs before evaluating a tool or advisor in this space.

The post treats non-conformance reports as a governance exposure, not administrative noise, because they intersect with serialized hardware, long qualification windows, special processes and multi-tier suppliers.

• It describes two failure modes from program reviews and recovery meetings: handoffs split across email, drives and separate workbooks that break traceability, and slow dispositions where engineering, production and suppliers chase updates instead of parts.
• The downstream effects include longer cycle times, recurring root causes that stay hidden, premium logistics, duplicated inspections, delayed shipments and brittle audit responses, with evidence scattered instead of organized into a provable thread tied to serial numbers and special-process records.
• The post closes by asking how to structure traceability and execution so decisions land where they change outcomes: on the floor, at the supplier gate and in engineering dispositions.

For brands planning a campaign

This is strong source material for content aimed at quality leaders under AS9100 pressure, especially a piece on structuring non-conformance workflows so corrective actions and audit evidence stay tied to serial numbers and special processes.

The post argues that as launch cadence rises, Tier 2 and Tier 3 space suppliers are still managing part genealogy on spreadsheets.

• It cites SpaceX completing 134 Falcon 9 launches in the prior year as the demand signal, and says a single nonconformance can ground a launch vehicle, making spreadsheet genealogy a liability rather than a documentation gap.
• It says the digital execution infrastructure Tier 1 aerospace OEMs adopted for AS9100 compliance is moving into space manufacturing faster than quality teams are prepared for.
• The post is tied to Space Tech Expo USA in Anaheim and invites attendees to compare notes, with a link to the company site for an AI workflow orchestration layer.

For brands planning a campaign

This is a natural anchor for content targeting space and defense suppliers rather than established aerospace primes, and shows how the same quality argument is adapted to a segment with a different risk framing.

One post walks through three customer examples from work with Connect 981: a global Tier 1 supplier that spent 20 minutes of admin on each of roughly 2,000 equipment receptions a year and recovered more than 400 hours annually by structuring a workflow layer around its existing ERP; a 30-site Tier 1 supplier whose non-conformance data sat in Excel files, paper forms and email threads and cut non-conformance closure time by 50%; and a supplier managing 4,000 purchase-order lines a year that stood up a supplier collaboration portal connected to its ERP and targeted 1,200 hours recovered annually. The common thread: none required ripping out existing systems, and each started with one workflow, one site or one team.

Diagnose a specific operational cost, describe a bounded first deployment, then give a measured before-and-after result.

For brands planning a campaign

A partner whose product integrates with ERP, MES and quality systems rather than replacing them fits how this creator frames the problem.

• The natural format is a customer-proof piece built on specific before-and-after numbers, not a product feature walkthrough.
• Keep the integration-and-measurable-outcome framing front and center.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The post specifies what a shared operational picture must reflect: work-in-progress across assemblies, in-process quality risk down to serial numbers, and supplier readiness against critical paths, held continuously rather than assembled at stand-ups.

• The proposed fix is an execution layer that aggregates ERP, MES, quality records and supplier events into one shared operational truth.
• Long lead times and serialized hardware mean small unknowns can turn into multi-week recoveries.

Name the failure modes seen in program reviews first, then define what the replacement picture must contain before naming any system category.

For brands planning a campaign

A vendor selling monitoring, MES or quality modules can brief the creator around a concrete failure-mode list rather than a feature set.

• Starting with program-review symptoms—chasing updates, late exceptions and late supplier warnings—fits the creator's framing.
• The post makes the case for a category; include evidence that the vendor's tool changes those outcomes.

Examples: Source 1

It explains why aerospace NCRs are different: they intersect serialized hardware, long qualification windows, special processes and multi-tier suppliers, so a manual workflow that worked at low volume becomes a governance exposure as rate, complexity or supplier handoffs increase.

• Named failure modes include handoffs split across email, drives and separate workbooks that break traceability, and slow dispositions because engineering, production and suppliers are chasing updates instead of parts.
• The consequences include longer cycle times, hidden recurring root causes, duplicated inspections and delayed shipments, plus brittle audit responses because evidence sits in pockets rather than in a provable thread tied to serial numbers and special-process records.

End with the operational question: not whether NCRs matter, but how traceability and execution are structured so decisions land on the floor, at the supplier gate and in engineering dispositions.

For brands planning a campaign

Quality-compliance vendors with an AS9100 story can use this framing for an advisory or sponsored content partnership.

• The creator positions traceability as a decision-placement problem, so show where the vendor's tool puts evidence and decisions, not just that it stores records.
• Use audit-readiness and serialized-part traceability in the brief.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

It cites SpaceX completing 134 Falcon 9 launches last year as evidence of accelerating launch cadence, then argues that Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers are still managing part genealogy on spreadsheets, which it calls a liability rather than a documentation gap in a sector where a single nonconformance can ground a launch vehicle.

• The post says the digital execution infrastructure Tier 1 aerospace OEMs adopted for AS9100 compliance is now being pulled into space manufacturing faster than most quality teams are prepared for, and links to a quick-implementation digital playbook using an AI workflow orchestration layer.
• They close by saying they will be at Space Tech Expo USA in Anaheim and inviting people to find them to compare notes on getting operations audit-ready for the next contract cycle.

This is the only post that presses urgency with a single sector-level launch statistic rather than a named customer case. The SpaceX figure provides context for demand pressure, not evidence about the supplier tiers described.

For brands planning a campaign

Space and defense suppliers are a distinct audience segment and a plausible target for a campaign with this creator.

• A brief aimed at Tier 2 and Tier 3 space suppliers can reuse the audit-readiness framing; one aimed at prime contractors needs different evidence.
• Ask for evidence of customer access before treating the post as proof of reach into space-sector customers.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Topics listed for meetings with OEMs, Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers and MROs include manufacturing execution and operational excellence; quality and FAA/EASA and CMMC compliance; supplier performance and supply chain resilience; factory data integration across ERP, MES and PLM; and practical AI applications that improve productivity without disrupting existing operations. The same framing appears in the product language elsewhere: AI-built workflows, real-time orchestration, live in one to two months.

Ask the vendor to substantiate the one-to-two-month deployment claim, which appears in the post's promotional wording.

For brands planning a campaign

An AI or manufacturing-software vendor whose message is measured, secure and integration-first can brief the creator in its own vocabulary.

• FAA/EASA and CMMC compliance is a differentiator worth testing in a brief, since it appears in the stated meeting topics but is not developed in the post.
• Avoid pitching a generic AI-thought-leadership slot: the material treats AI as a deployment and integration question, not a novelty.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The supply-chain example describes an aerospace supplier handling 4,000 purchase-order lines a year and drowning in email threads, manual ERP re-entry and reactive firefighting, with a structured supplier collaboration portal connected to the existing ERP as the replacement.

• The visibility post lists supplier readiness against critical paths as one of three requirements for a shared operational picture and identifies supplier risk flagged only when shortages hit the line as a recurring failure point.
• The space post adds that Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers are still running part genealogy on spreadsheets.

For brands planning a campaign

This is the creator's most consistently recurring commercial subject and the easiest place to structure a campaign: supplier-facing tools, portals and collaboration platforms have direct topical alignment. Name the target tier in the brief, since the posts treat Tier 1 operational problems and Tier 2/3 traceability problems as related but differently evidenced.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Two posts are organized around events—Space Tech Expo USA in Anaheim and Farnborough International Airshow—and both invite direct messages to arrange a meeting on the floor. A stable hashtag set recurs across posts, including AS9100, AerospaceQuality, Quality, Operations, ERP, MES, SpaceManufacturing, QualityManagement and, in newer posts, AI and Artificial Intelligence.

For brands planning a campaign

A partnership is likely to work best as an event-linked presence or sponsored case-study treatment, with a fuller breakdown hosted elsewhere. Confirm the deliverable format in the brief: the posts show written analysis, not video or long-form on-platform content.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5

One post presents three named-role customer cases — a global Tier 1 supplier recovering 400+ hours a year on equipment reception, a 30-site Tier 1 supplier cutting non-conformance closure time by 50%, and a supplier managing 4,000 PO lines a year targeting 1,200 hours recovered — links to the full case studies, and invites readers into a conversation.

• Another links directly to connect981.com and points aerospace and space manufacturing readers to the same product for AS9100 traceability.
• Ask how Fels is connected to the business.

View example

The tool, fed by SAP, is called the “womb to tomb” tracker.

• Its stated goals — better cross-functional alignment, work readiness and executable machine backlog — match the outcomes Fels argues a layer on top of the ERP should deliver.
• Parton reaches a similar conclusion: technology creates visibility, while people and leadership create results.

Parton writes as a program subject matter expert inside an aerospace manufacturer, describing an internal tool and the team conversations around it rather than publishing vendor customer case studies with before-and-after numbers. The posts also cover a move into a digital transformation team, mixing program execution, change management and role updates with Fels’s focus on operational failure modes and fixes.

Read original · Original 2

It builds repeatable processes, risk management, corrective action and supplier quality before growth forces them.

• That aligns with the governance framing Fels applies to non-conformance handling.
• Both write for people accountable for quality outcomes in aerospace supply chains.

The audience is startups moving from prototype to production, not established Tier 1 suppliers.

• The posts cite research — ISO 9001 studies and meta-analyses — rather than named customer before-and-after numbers.
• Career and mentoring posts aimed at engineering graduates also give the content a register not found in Fels’s work.

Read original · Original 2

It also calls for connecting live supply chain data to line-level inspection so a defect immediately triggers a validated alternative. That proactive-before-disruption thesis matches how Fels frames supplier readiness against critical paths and risks flagged only when shortages hit the line.

The focus is electronics and hardware component sourcing, not aerospace quality and AS9100 traceability; worked examples include memory chip spot pricing and component authentication. The posts promote platform announcements and event booth invitations for a vendor partnership, presenting product claims and market data rather than aerospace operational failure-mode analysis drawn from program reviews.

Read original · Original 2

Parton describes building and implementing a production execution tracker fed by SAP.

• It connects planning, NC programming, manufacturing engineering, order release, material issuance, machining, outside processing, quality inspection, and final inventory in one shared operational picture, and Parton credits it with improving work readiness and machine backlog.
• A second post describes joining the digital transformation team at Spirit Defense, a Boeing company, as a program subject matter expert, working on digital solutions spanning supply chain, design engineering, manufacturing engineering, stress engineering, and change management.
• For a workflow software company, that is the buyer's-side view: what an internal sponsor has to align, and how cross-functional adoption—not the tool alone—determines whether change sticks.

Parton writes from inside an employer's initiative, so these posts offer first-person program advocacy, not an independent assessment of tools on the market.

• A software company asking Parton to recommend its product would be working with an operator at a large-OEM employer, which limits independence and may create conflicts of interest.
• The two posts are career and initiative updates, not a body of how-to content for a campaign.
• Ask about outside-partnership formats, availability, and terms.
• If the campaign needs repeated explainer content with an agreed deliverable, Fels's case-breakdown posts are closer to the task; choose Parton for a credible internal-operator perspective in a one-off viewpoint piece, panel, or internal-adoption story.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

One post argues that a quality management system is infrastructure for scale, not bureaucracy, and backs the claim with named studies: an analysis of 263 SMEs on ISO 9001 practices and operational performance, a study of nearly 1,000 companies on adopters' growth, and two meta-analyses on certification and financial performance.

• The post also notes growing demand for start-up quality executives at VP and director level.
• A second post offers career guidance to graduating engineers and recommends aerospace and defense for exposure to how design, manufacturing, quality, supply chain, and operations intersect.
• The combination suits campaigns persuading founders or newly appointed quality leaders, and addressing the hiring and team-building side of quality adoption.

The quality post argues for the value of a quality system and supports the case with academic citations.

• It does not document a customer workflow with before-and-after numbers, making it less useful than Fels's material for readers deciding how to fix a specific non-conformance, traceability, or supplier-handoff process.
• The studies are cited by author and year rather than linked, and the outcome claims come from those studies, not Mike B.'s own implementation work.
• Ask for sponsorship terms, formats, and audience data before booking.
• Use Mike B. to open the argument with startups or reach quality leaders being hired into them; use Fels when a campaign needs concrete workflow failure modes and case-level detail.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

One post describes a memory-chip price surge, saying spot pricing moved from roughly $15 to $120 in about a year.

• It says Parter's automated risk alerts let hardware companies lock in inventory and change sourcing before the worst of the spike, and claims savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars per customer.
• A second post announces a partnership between Parter and Cybord, combining live supply chain intelligence with visual AI inspection of components on the line.
• When the system finds a defect on the line, it alerts procurement to find validated alternatives.
• For a company pitching ways to predict shortages, allocation pressure, and counterfeit or defective parts before they stop a line, this is a closer thematic match than Fels's quality-traceability posts.

The posts focus on electronics and component supply chains—memory pricing, component authentication, and sourcing—not aerospace quality management, AS9100 audit evidence, or non-conformance disposition, where Fels's material is strongest.

• Both promote Parter and its partnership, so an outside company would likely be entering a co-marketing arrangement around a named vendor's product rather than engaging an independent voice.
• The price-surge and savings figures are the poster's own claims; ask for the underlying data.
• Choose Israelit for procurement resilience and Fels for digital quality and operations workflow inside a manufacturing program.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2