Automated CAD release workflows vs manual review in lifecycle management-risk and efficiency in aras-13.0

PLM Aras Innovator
, , , , , , , ,
1

Our engineering team is debating whether to implement fully automated CAD release workflows or maintain manual review gates in our lifecycle management process. Currently in Aras 13.0, every CAD drawing goes through a manual approval by a senior engineer before release, which creates a bottleneck but ensures quality.

The proposal is to implement workflow automation with validation checks that would automatically release drawings that pass all criteria - geometry validation, property completeness, drawing standards compliance. Drawings that fail any check would route to manual review.

I’m concerned about the manual review tradeoffs. Our senior engineers catch subtle issues during review that automated checks might miss - design intent problems, manufacturability concerns, tolerance stack-ups. But we’re also releasing 200+ drawings per week and the manual review is causing 3-4 day delays.

What’s the right balance between workflow automation speed and human oversight for compliance and quality? Has anyone implemented smart validation checks that actually work?

2

From a compliance perspective, automated validation checks are actually more reliable than human review for standards compliance. Humans get tired, miss things, apply rules inconsistently. A well-designed automated check applies the same criteria every single time. We’ve had fewer compliance issues since implementing automated release workflows, not more. The key is documenting your validation rules thoroughly and updating them when standards change. Our automated checks reference our engineering standards document directly, so there’s full traceability.

3

We implemented automated release workflows last year with excellent results. The key is making your validation checks comprehensive enough to catch the issues that matter. We built about 40 different automated validations covering geometry, properties, references, standards compliance, and even some basic design rules. Only 15% of drawings now require manual review, and those are flagged for specific reasons.

4

Don’t underestimate the value of automated validation checks for catching errors early. When we implemented automated workflows, we discovered that about 40% of drawings had issues that would have been caught in manual review - but now they’re caught immediately at submission instead of days later. The designer fixes them right away while the design is fresh in their mind, rather than after they’ve moved on to other projects. This actually improved quality because feedback is immediate.

5

As someone who does these manual reviews, I can tell you that about 70% of what I check could be automated. Property completeness, title block accuracy, correct templates, proper references - all automatable. The remaining 30% requires engineering judgment - does this design make sense, will it be manufacturable, are tolerances appropriate. I’d support automation for the routine checks if we maintain human review for complex or critical parts. Use classification or part value to determine which path a drawing takes.

6

Having implemented automated CAD release workflows across multiple organizations, I can provide some insights on balancing workflow automation, validation checks, and manual review tradeoffs for both compliance and efficiency.

The most successful approach I’ve seen is a tiered automation strategy that applies different levels of automation based on part characteristics and risk profiles. This addresses your concern about manual review tradeoffs while maximizing efficiency gains.

For workflow automation implementation, start by categorizing your validation checks into three tiers:

Tier 1 - Mandatory Automated Checks (100% of drawings):

  • Property completeness (all required fields populated)
  • File format and CAD version compliance
  • Title block accuracy and standards compliance
  • Reference integrity (all referenced parts exist and are released)
  • Naming convention compliance
  • Drawing template validation
  • Basic geometry checks (closed boundaries, valid dimensions)

These checks are objective, rule-based, and should auto-reject drawings that fail. No human review needed - the system enforces standards consistently.

Tier 2 - Risk-Based Automated Validation (triggers manual review when needed):

  • Design complexity scoring (number of features, assembly components)
  • Tolerance analysis (stack-up calculations, GD&T validation)
  • Material and manufacturing process compatibility
  • Cost threshold triggers (parts above certain value get human review)
  • Change impact analysis (what downstream items are affected)
  • Supplier capability matching

These validation checks use business rules to flag drawings that need engineering judgment. A simple part with standard tolerances passes automatically. A complex assembly with tight tolerances routes to a senior engineer.

Tier 3 - Mandatory Manual Review (specific categories only):

  • Safety-critical components (defined by classification)
  • Customer-facing parts (cosmetic or interface requirements)
  • First-time designs in new technology areas
  • Regulatory-controlled items (medical, aerospace, etc.)
  • High-value tooling or custom manufacturing

For compliance concerns, automated validation checks are actually superior to human review for objective criteria. Humans are inconsistent - they miss things when tired, rushed, or distracted. Automated checks apply rules identically every time with complete traceability. Your compliance risk actually decreases with automation for standards-based validation.

The manual review tradeoffs you’re concerned about are real but manageable. Senior engineers catching subtle issues is valuable, but consider:

  1. Most of those subtle issues fall into patterns that can be codified into validation rules over time. Track what issues are found in manual review and convert them into automated checks.

  2. Engineering judgment is most valuable on complex, novel, or high-risk designs. Use automation to filter out the routine 70-80% so senior engineers can focus their expertise where it matters most.

  3. Immediate automated feedback is often more effective than delayed manual review. Designers learn faster when they get instant validation results rather than finding out days later that their drawing has issues.

Implementation approach I’d recommend:

Phase 1 (Months 1-2): Implement Tier 1 mandatory automated checks. This will catch the obvious errors immediately and reduce manual review burden. Your senior engineers will thank you for not having to check basic property completeness anymore.

Phase 2 (Months 3-4): Add risk-based routing logic. Define clear criteria for which drawings require manual review (complexity scores, part classification, value thresholds). Start with conservative thresholds - route more to manual review initially, then adjust based on data.

Phase 3 (Months 5-6): Implement Tier 2 advanced validation checks. These might include custom scripts for tolerance analysis, design rule checks specific to your industry, or integration with manufacturing systems for capability validation.

Phase 4 (Ongoing): Continuously improve validation rules based on issues found in manual review. Every time a senior engineer catches something in review, ask: could this be automated? Build a feedback loop.

Expected outcomes based on similar implementations:

  • 60-75% of drawings will auto-release through Tier 1 validation only
  • 15-25% will route to manual review based on Tier 2 risk triggers
  • 5-10% will require mandatory manual review (Tier 3 categories)
  • Overall release cycle time reduces by 50-70%
  • Compliance issues decrease by 30-40% due to consistent rule application
  • Senior engineer time is focused on high-value reviews rather than routine checking

The key to success is making validation checks comprehensive and continuously improving them. Start with basic checks, measure what issues still reach manual review, and systematically automate those patterns. After 12-18 months, your automated validation will be catching 90%+ of issues, and manual review becomes a focused, value-added activity rather than a bottleneck.