From ILS to IPS: An engineer’s view on why the shift matters

As Defence organisations move towards digital engineering and data-driven decision-making, traditional Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) approaches are increasingly being stretched. Integrated Product Support (IPS) is often described as the answer, but what does that transition actually look like? In this article, CDS Defence & Security’s Capability Sustainment team shares a grounded, practitioner view on why IPS matters, where organisations struggle, and how digitalisation and data are reshaping support.

For many organisations across Defence, ILS has long provided a structured way to think about supportability. It gave us defined elements, familiar artefacts, and a common language for addressing sustainment early in the lifecycle and optimised through life.

But the environment we are operating in today looks very different to the one in which ILS was first embedded. Platforms are more complex. Data volumes are orders of magnitude larger. Operational demands are less predictable. And the expectation is no longer just to design support, but to actively manage availability, cost, and risk through life.

This is where Integrated Product Support (IPS) comes in, not as a revolution, but as a necessary evolution.

IPS is not a rebadge of ILS

One of the most common misconceptions we still encounter is that IPS is simply ILS with a new name. From an engineering perspective, that view misses the point.

ILS has traditionally focused on defining support requirements and delivering outputs at key points in the acquisition lifecycle. IPS shifts the emphasis towards through-life outcomes, particularly availability and the continuous management of support using real operational data.

In practice, IPS is about:

• optimising availability at an acceptable whole-life cost

• integrating support more tightly with engineering, operations, and commercial decision-making

• standardisation of processes and data

• using data as a live input, not a historical reference

Crucially, IPS recognises that supportability does not stop once a platform enters service. It evolves, and it must be actively governed.

There is no single “right” flavour of IPS

Another engineering reality is that IPS is not a single, globally consistent framework.

Organisations may align to:

• ASD/AIA S-Series specifications

• SAE standards

• defence-specific national standards

• or, in some cases, bespoke approaches

Each comes with different implications for governance, tooling, cost, and interoperability. One of the earliest and most important decisions in any transition is being clear about which flavour of IPS is being adopted, and why. Without that clarity, teams can find themselves delivering activity that looks like IPS in name, but lacks coherence or consistency in execution.

The hardest part of IPS is not technical

From experience, the biggest barriers to IPS adoption are rarely technical. They are organisational.

IPS requires:

• senior leadership buy-in, based on a clear understanding of value

• agreement on where IPS leadership and authority sits

• changes to policy, process, and assurance models

• investment in people, skills, and supporting infrastructure

For engineers, this can be uncomfortable territory. But without clear governance and ownership, IPS risks becoming an additional administrative layer rather than an enabler.

Where IPS is successful, leadership understands that support decisions directly influence operational risk, cost growth, and availability, and treats IPS as a core management function rather than a specialist niche.

Data is the golden thread

What fundamentally differentiates IPS from legacy approaches is the role of data.

Modern IPS environments are increasingly underpinned by:

• live performance monitoring

• condition-based maintenance

• digital twins and simulation

• interactive technical publications

• automated scheduling and analytics

This data enables engineers and decision-makers to move away from assumption-based planning and towards evidence-based support optimisation.

The challenge is not a lack of data, but how effectively it is structured, governed, and exploited. IPS demands a coherent digital thread that connects design intent, operational reality, and sustainment decisions across the lifecycle.

IPS is a system, not a project

Another common pitfall is treating IPS transition as a finite project.

In reality, IPS must be implemented and sustained through a management system that covers:

• policy and standards

• assurance and risk

• workforce capability and career pathways

• continuous improvement mechanisms

Roles such as Integrated Product Support Managers (IPSMs) are central to this, but they cannot operate in isolation. Effective IPS relies on close integration with engineering, safety, commercial, project controls, and operations. Without that integration, the value of IPS is diluted.

Why this matters now

As Defence programmes increasingly embrace digital engineering, availability-based contracts, and data-driven decision-making, the limitations of traditional ILS approaches are becoming more visible.

IPS provides a framework that aligns with this direction of travel, but only if it is implemented deliberately, pragmatically, and with a clear understanding of organisational context.

From an engineering standpoint, the transition from ILS to IPS is less about adopting new terminology, and more about changing how we use information to make better support decisions.

Our perspective

At CDS Defence & Security, our Capability Sustainment team works across the full support lifecycle, from policy and standards, through to operational delivery.

We see IPS not as an abstract framework, but as a practical enabler of availability, affordability, and risk reduction when applied correctly. That means focusing on outcomes, investing in people and data, and embedding IPS as part of how organisations operate, not something they do on the side.

As conversations around IPS continue to mature across Defence, adding grounded, engineering-led perspectives is critical. The shift is already happening. The challenge now is making sure it delivers real value.

For more information about our Capability Sustainment services, CLICK HERE.