Change by Design: Engineering Transformation with Chad Jackson

What does it take to drive model-based definition adoption inside one of the world's most demanding aerospace environments? In this episode, Chad Jackson sits down with Brandon Paré, Senior Engineer in the Drafting and Product Definition group at Pratt & Whitney, where he specializes in MBD adoption and 2D-to-3D workflow transformation. Brandon's path to MBE didn't follow a straight line — it ran through circuit breaker design, aerospace machine shop floors, and one-touch gauging fixtures for jet engine components. That cross-functional journey is precisely what makes his perspective so sharp. He didn't just learn to create drawings; he stood next to the operators reading them and felt firsthand where design intent gets lost in translation. In this conversation, Brandon and Chad dig into: What it really means to be a change agent — and why conviction, not title, is what separates advocates from people who actually move organizations The credibility problem in manufacturing — why shop floor relationships matter more than credentials, and how to earn trust with machinists, CNC programmers, and quality inspectors MBD implementation timelines — why 3–7 years is the realistic range for meaningful transformation, and the pilot-first strategy that separates fast movers from organizations that stall out PLM governance as the non-negotiable foundation — why no amount of PMI quality saves you if your data management is undisciplined Customer pull vs. internal conviction — the two motivational forces behind MBE adoption, and why external mandates from primes like Pratt & Whitney and Collins Aerospace tend to compress timelines in powerful ways Signals your organization is ready for MBD — and the red flags that say "not yet" Tangible benefits that don't always make it into the ROI deck — drawing cycle time, first article inspection speed, supply chain communication, and reduced interpretation errors   Whether you're an engineering executive weighing the MBE business case or a change agent in the trenches trying to build cross-functional momentum, Brandon's experience navigating both the engineering and manufacturing sides of this transformation offers a grounded, practical perspective you won't get from a vendor whitepaper.

What does the future of engineering look like from the perspective of someone just entering the field? In this episode, Chad Jackson sits down with Ryan Botzbach — a final-year mechanical engineering student at UC Riverside with a computer science minor, a passion for aerospace and defense, and the kind of hands-on instincts that most companies spend years trying to cultivate. Ryan brings a perspective that engineering leaders can't afford to ignore. He's the engineer rebuilding a Volvo five-cylinder engine in his garage, converting 1970s aerospace drawings into 3D models for a machine shop, and running a thousand-person car club — all while finishing his degree. He's not waiting to "get experience." He's already in it. In this conversation, Ryan and Chad explore: Why today's young engineers will tolerate outdated tools — for now — and what happens when they gain enough experience to push back The change agent mindset — how to stay alert to improvement opportunities instead of just clocking in and clocking out Model-Based Definition in practice — what it looks like when a small machine shop bridges the gap from 2D legacy drawings to CNC-ready 3D models Fusion 360 vs. SolidWorks — an unpopular opinion from someone who uses both daily AI as an engineering accelerator — from troubleshooting obscure part numbers to standing up a Kubernetes cluster on a Raspberry Pi The affordability problem in defense — and why companies like Andúril represent a fundamentally different approach to how the industry operates Whether you're trying to recruit the next generation of engineers, modernize your workflows, or simply understand how the field is evolving from the ground up — this episode offers a candid, unfiltered view from someone standing right at the threshold. Ryan Botzbach is a graduating mechanical engineering student at UC Riverside and part-time team member at DNL Components, a supplier to aerospace, defense, and racing industries.

What does it look like to build a software engineering function from scratch inside an aerospace and defense organization that has never had one? Marilyn Arceo has done it—more than once, across industries—and her answer might surprise you: the hardest part isn't the technology. It's the translation. In this episode of Change by Design, Marilyn, an enterprise architect in aerospace and defense, talks about what it takes to stand up software engineering competencies in complex, regulated industries where those capabilities don't exist yet. She draws on a career that spans consumer packaged goods, fashion, healthcare, commercial real estate, e-commerce, and logistics to explain why the most valuable skill a change agent can develop isn't technical at all—it's the ability to sit between the deeply technical and the deeply human sides of an organization and make each one intelligible to the other. The conversation covers the practical mechanics of building teams: when to hire fresh graduates versus experienced engineers, how to convert mechanical and electrical engineers who already have software foundations, and why a hybrid agile-waterfall approach works better than imposing any single methodology on a team that's never used one. But the real value is in the strategic thinking underneath those decisions—how to evaluate whether an initiative is worth pursuing, when to push for innovation versus when to accept that the math doesn't work, and why iterative rollouts beat wholesale transformation every time. Marilyn also takes a grounded, cautious stance on AI-assisted development. She's seen the productivity gains, but she's equally clear about the risks: hallucinations, security exposure, and the "garbage in, garbage out" problem that surfaces when organizations skip the discipline of code review and governance. Her position is that AI should free engineers to focus on architecture and design, not replace the judgment that keeps systems safe. For engineering executives building new capabilities and change agents navigating cross-functional integration in regulated environments, this conversation delivers field-tested guidance without the hype. Topics covered: Standing up software engineering functions where none existed before The "business translator" gap: why organizations cluster at technical and people extremes Staffing strategies that blend fresh talent with experienced engineers and cross-trained domain experts Hybrid agile-waterfall adoption: making structural processes feel less overwhelming Risk vs. value: how to evaluate whether an initiative is worth pursuing before committing AI code assistance done right: governance, code review, and data security Breaking silos in hardware-software integration through cross-functional working sessions Cybersecurity as a collaborative partner, not a gate Green flags and red flags for change agents evaluating organizational readiness A mentor-forward philosophy: leaving every team and every engineer better than you found them

What does it take to transform the way a major automaker designs and validates its products — and who really drives that change? In this episode, Chad Jackson sits down with Vijay Sanikal, a seasoned automotive engineer and proud self-described change agent who has worked across OEMs including GM and Stellantis, tier one and two suppliers, and Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) software providers. Vijay brings a rare 360-degree view of the product development ecosystem, and he doesn't hold back on what it actually takes to move organizations forward. Vijay and Chad dig into the evolution of simulation-driven design — from the days when CAE was treated as offshore "extra work," to today's world where AI-assisted tools can optimize a design in real time without a human ever pushing a button. Vijay explains how the value proposition for simulation has fundamentally shifted, and why today's engineering leaders are far more prepared to invest in digital twin technologies than they were even a decade ago. But this episode is just as much about people as it is about technology. Vijay shares his framework for what makes a change agent effective — from winning stakeholders without authority, to building cross-functional innovation forums, to knowing when to call an initiative a silo and when to reframe it as a stepping stone. In this episode, you'll hear: Why innovation needs to come from the ground up — and how leaders can create the conditions for it How the roles of designer, simulation engineer, and requirements team must work in concert for change to stick The two ways AI is currently being integrated into CAE workflows — and what's coming next Why compute cost is an underappreciated risk in the shift to simulation-heavy development What green flags (and red flags) tell a change agent whether an initiative is worth championing Vijay's career advice for the next generation of engineers in a world where specialization is everything Whether you're leading a digital transformation initiative or trying to build a case for simulation investment, this conversation offers hard-won perspective from someone who has lived it across multiple organizations and continents.

Engineering transformation programs fail all the time—and Tracy Rupp has a clear diagnosis: we keep treating them as technology problems when they're really people problems. In this episode, Chad Jackson sits down with Tracy Rupp, Program Chief Engineer and Systems Engineer at L3Harris Technologies, to talk about what it actually means to be a change agent in a complex engineering enterprise. Tracy brings a rare combination of technical depth and leadership instinct, and she's unambiguous about where most initiatives go wrong: the moment a team loses sight of the people they're asking to change. Tracy offers a distinction that every engineering leader should hear—the difference between problem-solving and change agency. Solving a problem gets you to the finish line once. Change agency gets everyone else there too, and makes the path easier for everyone who comes after. She illustrates the difference with a story from early in her career and traces how that mindset shaped everything she's done since. The conversation covers MBSE with unusual clarity and practicality. Tracy advocates for it—but not as a mandate. Her argument is that systems engineers have an obligation to translate, not dictate: converting model insights into language that mechanical engineers, quality engineers, and program managers can actually act on. It's a refreshing take in a field that often treats tool adoption as the goal rather than the means. You'll also hear her perspective on building change coalitions—what she calls the "village" of visionaries, builders, and early adopters that every transformation needs—and her unconventional approach to design reviews that closes 80% of action items before anyone leaves the room. For engineering executives navigating digital transformation and the change agents fighting for it from inside their organizations, this episode is dense with hard-won, practical wisdom. Topics covered: What separates a change agent from a good problem-solver Why people resistance—not technology—is the defining challenge of engineering transformation MBSE done right: when to use it, when not to, and how to translate it across disciplines "Zero-day action items": how to close 80% of review actions during the meeting itself Building a talent development program from the ground up during COVID-19 AI as a domain translator between engineering disciplines How to push back on leadership when an initiative is set up to fail The "village" model for change coalitions and why no single change agent can carry a transformation alone

What does a youth minister turned Boeing AI engineer have to teach engineering executives and change agents? As it turns out, quite a lot. Dr. Ryder Dale Walton has spent the last decade driving two of the most consequential transformations in aerospace engineering: the shift from waterfall to Agile, and the integration of AI and large language models into engineering workflows. In this conversation with Chad Jackson, he offers a perspective on change leadership that you won't hear from most technical practitioners — one that's as grounded in human psychology as it is in engineering discipline. Ryder makes a case that the soft skills change agents most need are the ones they're least likely to have been trained on. When subject matter experts resist change, data and dashboards won't move them. What moves them is understanding what they stand to gain — and being patient enough to show them. His background in ministry and the arts, he argues, gave him the "ambidextrous brain" that makes the difference between a change initiative that gets funded and one that actually gets adopted. The conversation also gets into the real-world mechanics of change execution — why deploying fast beats deploying perfectly, how Agile adoption actually works through mentoring rather than training, and how to navigate the hardware-software integration challenge as product complexity explodes across aerospace, automotive, and defense. And on the topic of AI, Ryder offers a quietly unsettling observation: when machines automate the creative work, they may be taking away the very activities that help us recharge as human beings. Perhaps most relevant to change leaders: Ryder sounds a clear warning about burnout. When people are already stretched thin, the emotional bandwidth required to genuinely engage with and bring people along through change simply isn't there — and that's when initiatives quietly die.

When engineering transformation initiatives stall, it's rarely the technology that's to blame. In this week's roundup, Chad and Josh dig into why people resistance, not process gaps or technology issues, consistently ranks as the top challenge in MBD and MBSE initiatives, and why that resistance runs deeper than most change leaders expect. We're talking about identity, competency, and the very real fear of being left behind. Chad shares takeaways from a live roundtable with three MBSE practitioners who landed on a surprising point of agreement: MBSE isn't always the right answer, and knowing when to reach for it — versus document-based systems engineering — requires a level of organizational judgment most companies haven't developed yet. Add AI to that mix, and both approaches start to look very different. Speaking of AI, new research from Lifecycle Insights reveals that 76% of engineers at hard goods manufacturers are using AI for software development daily, and 52% say half the code they generate comes from AI tools. But here's the number that should give every engineering executive pause: 42% are not thoroughly reviewing that AI-generated code before committing it. Chad and Josh unpack what's actually driving that behavior — and it's not laziness. The episode closes with a preview of an upcoming Lifecycle Insights publication on the political realities of MBD and MBE initiatives — specifically, what happens when engineering wants the model-based enterprise but procurement, manufacturing, and other functional departments don't report to you. If you're leading or supporting an engineering transformation, this one is required listening.

Marshall Hulbert has done what most engineers only talk about — he's actually replaced the drawing. A veteran change agent now leading Model-Based Definition (MBD) and Model-Based Enterprise (MBE) adoption at Oshkosh Defense, Marshall joins host Chad Jackson to share what it really takes to drive a transformation that reaches far beyond the engineering department. The first half of the conversation covers the change agent role itself: the skills that matter, how to read organizational signals that predict success or failure, and the soft-skills battles you'll fight with departments that aren't yours to manage. The second half goes deep on MBD and MBE — what engineering, manufacturing, quality, and procurement actually gain when the drawing disappears, why supplier adoption is the hardest bridge to cross, and a forward-looking idea Marshall raises that's rarely discussed: feeding manufacturing programs, inspection results, and downstream data back into the model so it becomes a living, circular source of truth rather than just an output. Key Takeaways: Two types of change agents: those who assess and push a new initiative up the chain, and those who deploy it once the decision is made — Marshall prefers the first. Broad cross-functional knowledge is essential: before you can sell the change, you have to understand what every department actually does with a drawing today. Upper management buy-in is the make-or-break factor: wavering at the top creates stalls at every level below. MBD is unique because it removes the drawing entirely — unlike every prior shift in engineering (hand drafting to CAD to 3D), downstream departments can no longer rely on a familiar deliverable. The circular model: manufacturing programs, feed speeds, and inspection data can eventually feed back into the MBD, making it a living source of truth — not just an output. Supplier adoption is the hardest bridge to cross: quoting departments lack the software and training to interpret a model file, and until they can, the full value of MBD stays locked up. ROI doesn't always get calculated — in the defense sector especially, companies are adopting MBD because the government is heading there, not because someone ran the numbers. Start small and start now: run R&D or non-time-sensitive parts through the system first and get people used to it before production orders are on the line.

Research says engineering leaders expect a lot from Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) — improved reliability, better traceability, fewer integration failures. So why are those benefits so hard to actually realize? In a recent Lifecycle Insights study, fewer than 30% of teams reported achieving the outcomes they set out to get from MBSE. That's the gap this episode confronts head-on. Host Chad Jackson brings together three veteran systems engineers for a live roundtable that goes beyond theory: Anand Rangaramu, Guy Zur, and Branden Ramsey. Together, they tackle the hard questions practitioners rarely say out loud in conference presentations. In this episode: Why building a business case for MBSE is harder than it looks — and the organizational dynamics that make or break adoption How to scope your modeling effort without turning it into a bureaucratic burden The "all or nothing" trap that kills MBSE initiatives before they deliver value Why culture — especially psychological safety and tolerance for failure — may matter more than tooling What AI actually changes (and doesn't) for MBSE: from auto-populating requirements to "vibe coding" system models The one thing each panelist wishes engineering leaders truly understood about MBSE Whether you're trying to justify your first MBSE initiative or troubleshoot a stalled one, this conversation delivers the honest, experience-driven perspective you need to hear.

In this episode, Chad Jackson sits down with Ebele Okochar and Pete Oliver-Krueger, co-founders of Organizational Mindset Mapping (OMM), a coaching and training firm specializing in transformation for manufacturing and hardware companies. Together, they make a compelling case that Agile isn't just for software — and that the biggest breakthroughs in hardware development come from applying its core principles in ways most engineering organizations have never tried. Ebele offers a framing that cuts right to the heart of the skepticism: "Hardware is just software in slow motion." Pete and Ebele walk through IDD — Industrialization Driven Development — a framework they developed with colleague Jim Dato, building on hardware Agile pioneer Joe Justice's work. IDD gives teams a system-level view from deployment all the way back to initial design, helping them identify what to build now, what to defer, and where the critical risks live. The episode's most striking segment covers early prototyping. When OMM pushed a resistant client to build before designs were complete, the team uncovered three major problems within a month — a software-hardware integration failure, a materials issue, and customer feedback that eliminated an entire feature the engineering team had invested significant effort building. All discovered in month two, not month twenty-four. Pete and Ebele also challenge the industry's "digital first" trend, arguing physical and digital prototyping should happen in parallel. They discuss cross-functional teams, backwards process mapping, and how a department full of Agile resisters ultimately came around when they recognized the approach as the collaborative, hands-on work that drew them into engineering originally. Topics covered: IDD and why hardware needs its own Agile framework "Hardware is just software in slow motion" — and what that means in practice What early prototyping revealed that a traditional timeline would have buried for years Physical vs. digital prototyping — why it's not either/or How cross-functional teams cut 3-year timelines to 18 months The V-model vs. continuous verification Why how you introduce change matters more than which change you introduce

Chad Jackson digs into the growing gap between hardware and software development in engineering organizations — and why the industry's biggest solution providers may be running out of time to close it. Chad also reflects on his recent conversation with Anand Rangaramu of The Shyft Group, an automotive software supplier applying MBSE to software development rather than hardware. Anand's team works within a unique constraint — they receive the physical chassis from the OEM and own only the software layer — making their systems engineering challenges distinctly different from more hardware-centric guests like Laura Otero Hernandez and Brandon Ramsey. A key takeaway: the team is getting real value from MBSE, but primarily on the software side, which Chad sees as a common pattern of partial vision achievement across the industry. The conversation also digs into what separates successful MBD/MBE programs from stalled ones: executive alignment, the ability to translate practitioner-level impact into business ROI, and the soft skills that change agents need but rarely talk about. Finally, Chad puts out an open call to practitioners and leaders actively running MBD or MBE initiatives — if that's you, they want you on the show. The podcast is growing on both audio and YouTube, and there's a real opportunity to share your experience with a community facing the same challenges. Topics covered: The hardware/software integration gap — and why PLM and ALM solutions still don't truly connect AI as the emerging "middleware" threatening to commoditize legacy engineering platforms Anand Rangaramu's MBSE journey at The Shift Group: software-first systems engineering in automotive Partial vs. full vision achievement in MBSE adoption Change agent soft skills and executive communication Upcoming MBSE and MBD research from Lifecycle Insights How to get involved as a podcast guest

Lifecycle Insights CEO and Chief Analyst Chad Jackson sits down with Joseph Laurine, PhD, AI Governance Lead at a major healthcare organization and former head of AI Governance and Assurance for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). Joseph's career spans cryptologic intelligence, applied statistics, data science, and executive coaching — an unconventional path that's made him one of the more distinctive voices on responsible AI adoption. The conversation covers a lot of ground, starting with what it actually means to be a change agent in highly technical environments. Joseph argues that trust and usability are equally critical to adoption — and that framing AI governance as an obstacle rather than an enabler is one of the biggest mistakes organizations make. He also speaks candidly about how he deliberately developed his people skills, including earning an executive coaching certification, to bridge the gap between technical depth and organizational influence. On data, Joseph is direct: "garbage in, garbage out" is a phrase everyone uses but few executives truly understand. He makes the case that data quality is the single most important foundation for effective AI — and that skipping that work in the rush to be first to market is a bet most organizations will regret. He also offers a memorable framework for thinking about where AI models stand today: LLMs are the social butterfly — great at conversation, not your go-to for engineering or biology. Small language models (SLMs) represent the journeyman level the industry is moving toward, and Joseph predicts that shift will be visible within the next 18 months. Topics covered: What it means to be a change agent — and why trust and usability matter as much as technology Developing soft skills as a deeply technical person Why data governance is the true foundation of any AI initiative The limits of LLMs — and why domain-specific SLMs are the next frontier Digital twins as a safer environment for evaluating AI behavior Why being second to market with clean data may beat being first with a shaky foundation AI governance in healthcare vs. the intelligence community The role of IO psychologists and psychometricians in AI development

Are AI virtual companions the future of engineering work? Chad Jackson shares his takeaways from 3D Experience World, where Dassault Systèmes unveiled three AI assistants—each with distinct personalities tuned to different work modes. But what happens when exploration, execution, and expertise each demand a different interaction style? The conversation then takes a turn into new research revealing a troubling gap in MBSE initiatives: two-thirds of organizations pursue model-based systems engineering for cross-functional collaboration, yet only 24% report achieving it. Chad and Josh unpack why expectations have shifted—and why delivering on the core promise of coordination remains elusive for most teams. What’s causing the friction? The answers point to challenges that extend beyond MBSE to nearly every engineering transformation initiative. Plus, a preview of an upcoming conversation on merging Agile prototyping with systems engineering, and why putting imperfect work on the conference room table might be the breakthrough struggling teams need.

What does it take to transform aerospace innovation from concept to reality? In this episode, we explore the critical role of systems engineering in modern aerospace through a conversation with Sindhu Belki, a graduate research assistant at Georgia Tech’s renowned Aerospace Systems Design Lab (ASDL).   Systems engineering bridges the gap that often derails complex projects—the disconnect between specialized disciplines working in isolation. As Sindhu explains, without systems thinking, “there’s not a clear path forward” when companies create new products or labs pioneer new technologies.   Key Topics Explored: Why the “forest over trees” perspective matters in aerospace design and manufacturing How condition-based maintenance using structural health monitoring could revolutionize aircraft operations and reduce costly downtime The trade-offs between investing in current versus future technology through real-world disaster relief planning tools Overcoming resistance to systems engineering adoption in established organizations The critical need for multidisciplinary thinking in engineering education and practice Balancing traditional mentorship with openness to unconventional approaches Sindhu shares insights from hands-on projects including sensor optimization for blended wing body aircraft, humanitarian aid logistics tools developed for the Office of Naval Research, and collaborative work with the US Air Mobility Command and industry partners. These case studies reveal how systems engineering creates the foundation for breakthrough innovations while preventing costly conflicts between subsystems and teams.   Whether you’re an engineering leader, project manager, or technical professional navigating organizational change, this conversation offers practical perspectives on implementing systems thinking and fostering cross-disciplinary collaboration in complex environments.   Guest: Sindhu Belki, Graduate Research Assistant, Aerospace Systems Design Lab, Georgia Tech

Can a lack of systems engineering really cost a program $68 million? Absolutely, according to Laura Otero, Director of Digital Engineering at Leidos. In this episode, Chad Jackson and Laura explore the trenches of digital engineering, where culture wars between document-based and model-based are still being fought every day.   Topics covered: The Unpaid Labor of Change: Why change agents are essential but rarely have the official title or time allocated. The Translator Role: How successful leaders bridge the gap between C-suite vision and engineering execution. MBSE ROI: A case study on how live model reviews led to a “zero-action” PDR and saved weeks of back-and-forth. The $68 Million Mistake: What happens when programs skip systems engineering in Phase 1. Over-Modeling Pitfalls: Why you shouldn’t model COTS parts down to the resistor—or try to model two humans talking in a bunker. AI & MBSE: The future of using AI to generate model templates and accelerate development. If you’re navigating the shift from documents to data, this episode offers practical advice on what works, what fails, and how to survive the transition.

Complexity is rising, timelines aren’t getting longer, and organizations can’t afford “set the stack once and never change it” thinking anymore.  In this episode, Chad Jackson sits down with Branden Ramsey to unpack what it really takes to lead change—especially in aerospace/defense and systems engineering environments where integration, interfaces, and risk are everything.   Topics covered: Choosing the leadership track: Why caring about people is the tell for whether management is a fit. What a “change agent” is (and why it usually becomes an extra job on top of engineering work). Three essentials for successful change: a crisp “why,” realistic capacity, and trust (including how to reduce fear by framing change as upskilling). Programs vs. change: Why big commitments make tradeoffs unavoidable—and why the decision is almost never “clear.” Systems engineering reality check: SE provides value, but outdated document-heavy processes can turn it into a burden in a fast-change world. MBSE and modeling depth: Why “model everything” breaks down, how to think about rigor vs. agility, and why interfaces are the anchor. “SysML 2.0 / ‘CS ML 2.0’” implications: How stronger standardization can make models more computer-friendly for analytics and AI-era workflows.

In this episode, we sit down with McKray Jones, a Technical Program Manager and Deputy Director of Engineering, to explore the evolving role of the “Change Agent” in modern engineering organizations. McKray shares his unique journey from the Marine Corps to leading complex hardware integration teams, offering a fresh perspective on why the engineering industry is facing a leadership vacuum and how to fill it. We dive deep into the challenges of transitioning from traditional waterfall models to accelerated, MVP-driven hardware development. McKray explains how to bridge the gap between software agility and hardware reality, the critical role of empathy in technical leadership, and when organizations should make the leap to Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE). Whether you are an engineering leader, a systems architect, or an aspiring change agent, this conversation offers actionable insights on building trust, managing complexity, and keeping the business viable while driving innovation. Key Topics Discussed: Defining the Change Agent: Moving teams from long development cycles to revenue-generating MVPs. The Human Side of Engineering: Why empathy, listening, and understanding business flows are critical skills for technical leaders. Hardware vs. Software: Adapting Agile and “user story” concepts to physical hardware systems with long lead times. MBSE Strategy: When to switch from document-based engineering (Excel/SharePoint) to models (Cameo/Capella) and how it aids in certification. The Modern Engineer: How the profile of a successful engineer has shifted to demand higher EQ and communication skills.

This week, Josh Corman and Chad Jackson explore AI-assisted workflows in engineering, break down how internal resistance can actually improve improve transformation outcomes, and dig into the pain points associated with MBSE adoption.   In this episode, we discuss: AI-Native Workflows: We deconstruct the concept of “AI Scaffolding”—a method to provide engineering models with a “memory” by using document-based inputs to maintain constraints and context. Reframing Resistance: Chad introduces the “Judo Throw” of resistance, explaining how savvy change agents use pushback to build investment and uncover project-threatening flaws early. The Systems Engineering Struggle: Why the #2 challenge for MBSE is the learning curve, and how AI-powered “vibe coding” might help simplify SysML modeling. Research Findings: Insights from our recent study and what we’re learning from the 300+ respondents. Join the conversation on LinkedIn: Follow Chad Follow Lifecycle Insights Benedict Smith's post on AI-native workflows. Visit our site to learn more about InsightEX and sign up for our newsletter. Lifecycle Insights | InsightEX

In this episode, Chad sits down with Guy Zur, Director of Test Systems and Automation at CARIAD (Volkswagen Group). A self-proclaimed “change agent” born with a soldering iron in his hand, Guy shares his fascinating journey from designing thermal imaging for defense to developing AR glasses for pilots and now revolutionizing automotive testing.   We dive deep into the philosophy of the “Change Agent”—why leadership requires proactively steering organizations through resistance—and explore the critical role of the “Right Side of the V” in systems engineering. Guy opens up about the valuable lessons learned from startup failure, why he champions transparency in engineering culture, and his “Design to Test” approach that ensures quality from day one.   Whether you are an engineer, a leader, or interested in the complex systems behind autonomous vehicles and aviation, this conversation offers actionable insights on building resilient teams and robust products.   Key Topics Discussed Defining the Change Agent: What it takes to be a revolutionary leader in engineering organizations. The Origin Story: Guy’s path from FPGA design in Israel to aviation and autonomous vehicles in North America. Embracing Failure: Why hiding mistakes kills innovation and how transparency builds safer, smarter teams. Systems Engineering Strategy: A look at Document-Based approaches vs. Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE). Design to Test: How defining test procedures before development begins saves time and money. The V-Model: Mastering the integration and verification phases (the “Right Side of the V”). Guest Bio   Guy Zur is the Director of Test Systems and Automation at CARIAD US. With a diverse background spanning the defense, aviation, and automotive industries, Guy specializes in hardware-software integration and testing for complex systems. He has previously held roles at Elbit Systems, Honeywell, and Motional, working on cutting-edge technologies like commercial aviation AR glasses and autonomous vehicle systems.

Is the “Digital Thread” a utopian dream or a practical reality? In this week’s episode of Change by Design, Josh Corman and Chad Jackson explore the tension between the technology that can capture everything and the engineering reality where critical context often lives in spreadsheets and hallway conversations.   We discuss why “hiding” work-in-process data might be efficient for humans but disastrous for future AI agents. If an AI stakeholder can only see the final decision and not the messy options you rejected, can it ever truly learn? Plus, big news for the Lifecycle Insights community: We are launching two major initiatives to let you drive our future research.   Key Topics Discussed: The Digital Thread Reality Check: Why capturing 100% of engineering data often creates more bureaucracy than value. New Research Findings: What we've learned about change agents and their additional IT and design/development responsibilities. AI’s Blind Spot: How undocumented decision-making processes create a massive gap in training data for autonomous AI agents. Community Announcements: Details on the new Founders Program (early platform access) and Advisory Councils (strategic quarterly input). Learn more about the InsightEX Founders Program and Advisory Councils.

Why do 42% of organizational change initiatives face extreme resistance? Often, it’s not the technology—it’s the human element.   In this episode, Chad Jackson sits down with Nikki Maginn, an engineer-turned-educator who teaches emotional intelligence (EQ) to technical professionals. Nikki shares her personal journey from receiving 199 job rejections after the Fukushima nuclear disaster to managing $25 million in projects by age 23—and how those experiences revealed that “soft skills” are actually the hardest part of engineering.   We explore why EQ is a force multiplier for career growth (adding ~$30k to earning potential), how to use the RULER method to regulate emotions in high-stress environments, and why resistance to change should be treated as valuable feedback rather than a barrier.   Key Topics: The “Translator” Role: How EQ helps engineers bridge the gap between technical doers and business executives. Resistance is Feedback: Why change agents should stop taking pushback personally and start using it to improve the process. Generational Shifts: How Millennials and Gen Z are reshaping engineering culture by demanding purpose, mental health awareness, and the “why” behind the work. Practical Tools: Implementing the RULER framework (Recognize, Understand, Label, Express, Regulate) in technical teams. Guest:
Nikki Maginn is an emotional intelligence educator and consultant empowering the next generation of engineers. You can connect with her on LinkedIn.   About the Show:
Change by Design shines a light on engineering transformation, helping organizations navigate complexity and maximize value in their digital journeys.

In this first episode of the new year, Josh Corman and Chad Jackson kick off 2026 by breaking down the engineering implications of the latest innovations from CES, including advancements in physical AI, autonomous sensors, and next-gen processors.   The conversation then shifts to exclusive new research findings on engineering change initiatives. Chad reveals data showing a surprising mix of high success rates and high resistance, explaining why “resistance is a form of feedback” that leaders should welcome rather than fear. Finally, Chad challenges the industry consensus on Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), arguing that its value doesn’t necessarily depend on enterprise-wide adoption, and shares a roadmap for the upcoming InsightEX platform.   Key Topics & Takeaways CES 2026 Recap: Highlights from the show floor, including AI chips from Tesla and Arm, Siemens’ digital twin updates, and the rise of “physical AI” in robotics. The Competency Gap: How organizations can balance the pressure to develop new skills (AI, cloud, cybersecurity) while still hitting product delivery deadlines. Research Reveal: New data from late 2025 shows an 82% success rate for initiatives, yet 42% of organizations still encounter high or extreme resistance. Rethinking Resistance: Why pushback from engineers is often a sign of engagement and how change agents can use it to build better processes. The PLM Debate: Chad offers a counterpoint to the idea that PLM is low-value unless extended to the enterprise, highlighting gaps in how current tools handle software and cybersecurity. InsightEX Update: A sneak peek at the launch of the new resource library, community forums, and online assessment tools for engineering leaders.

In this episode of Change by Design, host Chad Jackson interviews Greg Livelli, Senior Vice President of Innovation at Harvey Performance Company. Livelli shares his non-linear career path from business development in Asia to leading global transformation initiatives, offering a unique perspective on how curiosity and a “love for transformation” drive engineering success. Their conversation centers on the evolving role of engineering leaders—shifting from purely technical managers to the architects, coaches, and translators who must bridge the gap between complex engineering vision and business execution. Livelli details the importance of balancing structured governance with agile experimentation, navigating the generational “brain drain” through reverse mentorship, and redefining engineering metrics to focus on impact and engagement rather than just output .

In this episode of Change by Design, host Chad Jackson sits down with Alex Atala (Amazon, formerly of Stryker) to explore the human side of engineering transformation. They discuss why technical expertise alone isn’t enough to drive change and how “soft skills” like transparency, negotiation, and psychology are the true differentiators for success.   Alex shares candid insights from his career, breaking down the red flags that signal a doomed initiative and the “green flags” that set teams up for a win.   Key Topics: The Change Agent Toolkit: Why communication and building trust are your most critical assets. Red Flags vs. Green Flags: How to evaluate leadership competence and project viability before you commit. Success & Failure Stories: Real-world lessons from a seamless medical device launch and a chaotic product recall. Navigating Team Dynamics: Overcoming the “square engineer” stereotype to build consensus across diverse groups.

Join Lifecycle Insights’ CEO Chad Jackson and Head of Content Josh Corman as they wrap up 2025 with a deep dive into the critical shifts facing engineering leaders. In this episode, the team explores why cybersecurity can no longer be an afterthought and how “Agile for Hardware” is reshaping development cycles through frequent prototyping.   They also outline a strategic framework for change agents to assess the business value versus execution risk of new initiatives—helping you decide when to push forward and when to say “no.” Finally, get an exclusive preview of the Q1 2026 research agenda, focusing on Change Agent careers, MBSE, and Model-Based Definition (MBD).   Key Topics: Cybersecurity in Design: Moving from IT firewalls to engineering competency. Agile for Hardware: The cultural shift toward early, frequent physical prototyping. Strategy Framework: How to balance initiative value against organizational risk. 2026 Outlook: Upcoming research on MBSE, MBD, and Change Agent success.

Lifecycle Insights CEO and Chief Analyst Chad Jackson talks with change agents Alex Atala and Marshall Hulbert about how they’ve led major engineering transformations—from early CAD adoption to model-based definition—while navigating resistance, politics, and cross-functional complexity. They share the key skills, mindsets, and approaches that make change initiatives succeed—or fail—offering practical guidance for anyone looking to drive real change in engineering organizations.