When a customer demands "hand over all documents," are you really ready? In automotive, a classic scenario: the OEM (customer) asks the supplier for a configuration items list for a prototype sample. The supplier sends an Excel. When the OEM wants to drill into the docs, review records, and baseline logs behind each row, the supplier smiles bitterly and opens a folder with hundreds of files piled with review records, change logs, baseline certificates...

Is ASPICE configuration management a rigorous R&D standard, or has it become synonymous with "documentation theater"?

What Is Configuration Management?

ASPICE 3.1 officially states: The purpose of the Configuration Management Process is to establish and maintain the integrity of all work products of a process or project and make them available to affected parties.

In plain language: constantly record complete work products during vehicle system development.

What are work products? For OEMs, it's the car. For parts suppliers, it's the whole component—both software and hardware.

Why record work product integrity? If Supplier A delivers a C-sample component to OEM B, the OEM needs to know: which requirement docs and test cases this C-sample was built against, which software version and hardware version was delivered. This lets the OEM verify, integrate, and develop further with full clarity.

So far, all reasonable. But why has configuration management become a "document harvester"?

Let's reconstruct a V-model scenario:

Requirements phase: Supplier writes "Parking System Requirements Spec" v1.0. Review finds 5 issues, revised to v1.1

Architecture phase: Based on v1.1, architect outputs "Software Architecture Design" v2.0. Review finds 3 issues, revised to v2.1

Test phase: Tester writes "System Test Cases" v3.0 based on v2.1, discovers requirement misunderstanding, backtracks requirements to v1.2, then revises test cases to v3.1

Now the OEM requests C-sample delivery. The configuration items list needs to include: requirements v1.2 + review records (5 issue closures), architecture v2.1 + review records (3 closures), test cases v3.1 + review records (2 iterations), change request forms + CCB meeting minutes + impact analysis, code, compilation reports, flashing scripts, calibration data...

An engineer calculates: one requirements document spawns at least 12 附属 documents. An ECU project averages 200 requirements—that's 2,400 documents. A 2,000 person-day project has 80% of people writing "prove your mom is your mom" materials.

Customer Trust Crisis vs. Supplier Formalism

Customers demand all process documents, reflecting both distrust of supplier R&D capability and unclear understanding of what they actually need.

What does the customer actually want?

Ensure the C-sample matches the requirements delivered

When problems occur, supplier can quickly localize

Supplier processes are compliant and credible, meeting automotive industry standards

If customers try to substitute "document completeness" for "process credibility," they're fooling blind people. More documents mean less credibility—because engineers start batch-approving review records, CCB minutes with fixed templates where only the date changes.

Solution: From "Writing Documents" to "Building Products"

1. From "Document Compliance" to "Process Trust"

Configuration management's core isn't document stacking—it's using toolchain automation and process credibility design so customers trust supplier capability without reading every document.

Toolchain automation: Use ALM tools to auto-generate version records, baseline certificates, review logs—minimize manual work

Process credibility design: Standardized review processes, CCB mechanisms, issue tracking closure—every change is traceable and auto-recorded in the system, immutable by either party

Sampling instead of full document delivery: Let customers spot-check any document in the toolchain (forward engineering, traceability, review, baseline) rather than demanding one-time bulk exports

2. Fusing Agile and ASPICE

Agile emphasizes "rapid iteration, minimal documentation" while ASPICE demands "process compliance, traceability." The conflict seems irreconcilable, but the core goal is the same: deliver high-quality, verifiable products.

Fusion path: product-centric. Agile teams write minimal feature/story/task tickets, and the toolchain automatically assembles them into complete documents, handling version management, baselines, and change reviews automatically.

Conclusion: 3 Lines for Customers, 3 Actions for Suppliers

For customers:

What you want isn't documents—it's controllability. Achieved through toolchain + sampling, not document stacking.

What you want isn't history—it's certainty right now. The delivery baseline is that certainty; history stays in the tool system.

What you want isn't process—it's results. If the C-sample fails bench testing, 1,000 documents won't help.

For suppliers:

Put ALM on the schedule tonight. Without a toolchain, offline Word/Excel means doubling your team size just to write documents

Schedule an alignment meeting with the customer tomorrow to redefine "delivery baseline" scope—remove historical versions and review records from the delivery list

Move CCB meetings offline to ALM next week—every change is traceable, but no need to print it out