Jakub Piotrowicz
Configuration Management Engineer · Configuration & Data Management
Warsaw, Poland
Configuration Management Engineer responsible for maintaining product baselines, controlling engineering changes, and ensuring traceability from requirements to as-built hardware. Manages the Change Control Board (CCB) process and administers PDM/PLM systems. Ensures AS9100 Section 8.5 compliance across all programs.
Expertise
- configuration item identification and baseline management
- engineering change order (ECO/ECN) process management
- Change Control Board (CCB) facilitation
- PDM/PLM administration (ENOVIA, Teamcenter)
- as-built and as-designed configuration documentation
- AS9100 Rev D Section 8.5 compliance
Technologies
Work History
2024-04
Compiled as-built configuration record for the first flight unit — documented exact part numbers, revision levels, serial numbers, and deviation/waiver disposition for 340 configuration items.
Challenge: 3 parts were assembled with earlier revisions than the current design due to parts availability. Required formal deviation documentation and CCB approval for each, with Engineering sign-off that earlier revision was acceptable.
Learned: As-built records must be maintained in real time during assembly, not reconstructed afterward. Reconstructing from memory and scattered records takes 10x longer and has lower fidelity.
2023-08
Processed 67 Engineering Change Orders (ECOs) during PDR-to-CDR phase. Managed impact assessment, CCB approval workflow, ENOVIA baseline update, and drawing revision release for each change.
Challenge: Four ECOs had cascading impacts on other drawings not initially identified by the originating engineer. Implemented an automated 'where used' check in ENOVIA to flag all affected documents before CCB approval.
Learned: Change impact assessment must be systematic, not dependent on the originating engineer's knowledge of all affected items. Automated 'where used' queries in PDM are essential for complex assemblies.
2023-02
Established Configuration Management Plan (CMP) for satellite program. Defined 4 configuration items, baseline types (FBL, ABL, PBL), and CCB membership and decision authority levels.
Challenge: Engineers viewed the CCB process as bureaucratic overhead and were approving changes informally via email. Showed 2 examples where un-controlled changes caused drawing/hardware mismatches at test. Enforcement improved immediately.
Learned: Configuration management processes need concrete failure examples to get buy-in. Abstract process descriptions don't motivate compliance; real problems caused by non-compliance do.