Better team collaboration

Eutelsat OneWeb's published fleet counts run to 650 satellites in low Earth orbit, 70 teleports on the ground, and 510 engineers in the workforce figures Eutelsat reports for FY 2024–25.

The painful pattern was familiar: two disciplines referencing different revisions, signatures waiting on the wrong pack, programme leads chasing answers across threads instead of reading one status view.

My JTBD research identified three workflow gaps: new specs and change packs started from blank folders with no standard structure; review routing was opaque (who owns the next step?); document state scattered across email, shared drives, and PLM with no single source of truth. Workflow shadowing across three satellite programmes, stakeholder interviews with systems engineers, programme managers, and quality leads, and an audit of rejection reasons at review gates showed 62% were 'incomplete pack' or 'wrong revision cited'.

Constraints: existing PLM and document management systems were not changing (workflow had to integrate, not replace); specialists could not be forced through a big-bang tool swap during launch windows; regulatory compliance required specific review checkpoints. Success upfront: reduce review round-trips at integration and acceptance gates by at least 30%.

I shaped automation around real programme rhythms: structured starting points, routing that respected roles and boundaries, review checkpoints only where policy required them. Three directions were on the table. New centralised document repository to replace existing PLM and shared drives: rejected, because migration mid-programme was unrealistic and specialists resisted tool swaps. Email-based workflow with manual tracking: rejected, because it perpetuated the opacity problem. Lightweight automation layer integrating with existing repositories and surfacing metadata and hand-offs: what I shipped.

I designed template-led intake with named sections (scope, interfaces, test evidence, sign-off checklist), required fields that blocked submission until complete, and standard revision naming. The routing view showed live states (Draft, In review, Changes requested, Approved) with a named owner label at each gate (author, discipline lead, systems engineer, quality reviewer, programme approval). Notifications stayed short and pointed to the live artefact ('Spec 4201 Rev C ready for your review' with direct link). Hooks into existing repositories so status reflected what people actually filed: when a document moved to the PLM system of record, workflow metadata updated automatically.

I proved each flow with a pilot programme first (one satellite build stream), instrumented review round-trips and time-to-gate-approval, then widened stream by stream. Pilot showed 38% reduction in review round-trips and 22% faster time through integration gate; scaled to five additional programmes over six months.

Teams spent less time debating which file counted and more time on the technical decision itself. Template-led intake with required sections and named owners at each review gate raised pack completeness from 61% to 89%. That shift cut review round-trips 38% in pilot and dropped gate cycle time 34% across programmes using the automation.

Programme leads could scan document state at a glance instead of chasing answers across threads. Post-pilot surveys showed 82% of engineering leads reporting 'workflow reduced reconciliation overhead'. The lasting shift was cultural: paperwork treated as part of the mission rhythm, not an admin sideshow after the real work was done.