In my experience, TC programme management is structurally different from STC management. Not necessarily harder, but different. An STC programme has often a contained scope and a team small enough that an experienced engineer can hold the full compliance picture in their head for a meaningful part of the project. And a handful of persons cover all required disciplines to bring the project to completion.
A TC programme does not.
The compliance matrix for an aircraft has thousands of requirements, each with its own means of compliance, associated evidence, cross-references, and current status relative to the design. The team spans multiple disciplines and departments, sometimes multiple organisations, often multiple years.
At that scale, the question "where are we" cannot be answered by one person, and the silos-tendency is much stronger. It requires a system that holds the full compliance picture and can be queried at two levels simultaneously: programme level — what is open, what is at risk — and requirement level — what is the specific claim, what evidence supports it, has anything touched this requirement since the last review.
CIVIRES holds both levels. The project view for the project manager. The matrix view for the certification engineer. And the connection between them, so that a status update on a requirement propagates immediately to the documents and activities for the engineers and the CVEs. All this integrated - without a separate reporting exercise.
If you are managing a TC programme I woudl be curious to know how this kind of complexity is managed and I would be happy to show how we approach it.
hashtag#CIVIRES hashtag# hashtag# hashtag#Certification hashtag#DOA