Automated part classification migration to cloud improves search accuracy and reduces manual categorization

I want to share our successful implementation of automated part classification during our migration to Aras 12.0 cloud. We had 47,000 legacy parts with inconsistent or missing classification data, which made search practically useless.

The manual approach would have taken our team months to review and classify each part. Instead, we built an automated classification system using the Aras cloud API and machine learning to analyze part attributes and assign appropriate classifications.

Our solution used a Python script that pulled part data via REST API, applied classification rules based on part attributes like material, function, and geometry, then pushed updated classifications back to Aras. We also implemented data validation rules to flag parts where automated classification had low confidence for manual review.

The results were impressive: 92% of parts were automatically classified with high confidence, search accuracy improved by 78% based on user testing, and the entire migration completed in three weeks instead of the estimated six months. Engineers can now find similar parts reliably, which has reduced duplicate part creation by 34%.

Happy to share technical details about the API integration, classification algorithms, and validation approach if others are tackling similar data quality challenges in cloud migrations.

I’ll provide comprehensive details on our implementation approach that others can adapt for their cloud migrations.

Automated Classification Strategy:

We developed a three-tier classification system that balanced automation speed with accuracy requirements:

Tier 1 - Rule-Based Classification (handled 45% of parts):

Deterministic rules based on explicit part attributes. For example, parts with ‘bolt’ in the name and material=‘steel’ automatically classified as Hardware > Fasteners > Bolts. We created 78 such rules covering common part families. This tier had 98% accuracy because rules were based on clear attribute patterns.

Tier 2 - Machine Learning Classification (handled 47% of parts):

Trained a random forest model on 3,200 manually-classified parts from our legacy system. The model learned complex patterns from 12 part attributes including material, dimensions, supplier category, and description keywords. Feature importance analysis showed that material type and primary function were the strongest predictors. The model achieved 87% accuracy on held-out test data.

Tier 3 - Manual Review Queue (8% of parts):

Parts where automated classification confidence was below 80% threshold, or where rule-based and ML classifications conflicted. These required human judgment - typically parts with unusual attribute combinations or missing critical data.

API-Based Migration Implementation:

The cloud API integration used Python with the requests library. Key technical aspects:

# Authentication and batch processing
headers = {'Authorization': f'Bearer {token}'}
batch_size = 50

for i in range(0, len(parts), batch_size):
    batch = parts[i:i+batch_size]
    payload = {'items': [{'id': p.id, 'classification': p.new_class}
                         for p in batch]}
    response = requests.post(api_url, json=payload, headers=headers)

We implemented comprehensive error handling: logging all failed updates with part IDs for reprocessing, automatic retry with exponential backoff for transient failures, and daily reconciliation reports comparing source data to Aras cloud state to catch any synchronization gaps.

Rate limiting was managed through: batch processing (50 parts per request), throttling to 10 requests per second, scheduling during off-peak hours (10 PM - 2 AM), and progress monitoring with automatic pause if error rate exceeded 2%.

Data Validation Rules:

Implemented multi-level validation to ensure classification quality:

Pre-classification validation:

  • Verify required attributes present (material, function, description)
  • Check attribute values against allowed lists
  • Flag parts with contradictory attributes

Post-classification validation:

  • Verify classification path exists in Aras taxonomy
  • Check for logical consistency (e.g., plastic parts not classified under metal categories)
  • Compare to similar parts’ classifications using cosine similarity on attribute vectors
  • Flag classifications that differ from 90% of similar parts

Ongoing validation:

  • Monitor search result click-through rates by classification
  • Track user reclassification actions (indicates automated classification errors)
  • Quarterly review of classifications with <50% search relevance

Search Accuracy Measurement:

We used a rigorous testing methodology to quantify improvement:

  1. Created test dataset of 200 search queries from actual user search logs
  2. For each query, subject matter experts identified the 10 most relevant parts
  3. Measured search accuracy using normalized discounted cumulative gain (NDCG) metric
  4. Compared pre-migration vs post-migration search results

Pre-migration NDCG: 0.42 (many relevant parts not found or ranked low)

Post-migration NDCG: 0.75 (78% improvement)

We also tracked user behavior metrics: average search session length decreased from 8.4 to 4.7 minutes, parts found per search increased from 2.1 to 5.8, and user satisfaction surveys showed 89% reported improved search experience.

Downstream Benefits:

Beyond search improvement, automated classification enabled:

  • Accurate spend analytics by part category (previously impossible with inconsistent classifications)
  • Supplier performance analysis by part family
  • Standardization initiatives identifying redundant parts within categories
  • Better demand forecasting using classification-based historical patterns
  • Improved PLM-ERP integration with consistent part categorization

The reduction in duplicate part creation (34%) came from engineers actually finding existing parts through improved search, rather than creating new parts because search failed. Over 12 months, this avoided approximately 1,600 duplicate parts, saving substantial engineering and procurement time.

Total project effort: 240 hours for development, 120 hours for validation and refinement, 40 hours for execution and monitoring. Estimated manual classification effort avoided: 2,400 hours. ROI was achieved within the first quarter post-migration.

The data validation rules you mentioned sound critical for maintaining quality. What specific validation checks did you implement? We’re worried about automated classification introducing errors that would be hard to detect and fix later. How did you ensure the classifications were actually improving search accuracy rather than just moving the problem around?

Rate limiting was definitely a consideration. We implemented batching - processing 50 parts per API call instead of individual updates. The script included exponential backoff retry logic for failed requests. Here’s a simplified version:

for batch in part_batches:
    retry_count = 0
    while retry_count < 3:
        response = api.update_parts(batch)
        if response.status == 200:
            break
        time.sleep(2 ** retry_count)
        retry_count += 1

We also ran the migration during off-peak hours to minimize impact on users and scheduled it over three nights to stay well under API limits.

How did you handle the API integration for bulk updates? We’ve been hesitant to use REST APIs for large-scale data operations in cloud due to rate limiting concerns. Did you encounter any throttling issues when updating 47,000 parts? Also curious about your error handling strategy when API calls failed.

This is exactly what we need for our upcoming cloud migration. Can you share more about the classification rules you used? Did you train a machine learning model on existing correctly-classified parts, or did you create rule-based logic? We have about 30,000 parts with similar data quality issues.

We used a hybrid approach. Started with rule-based classification for obvious cases - like any part with material=‘steel’ and function=‘fastener’ gets classified as Hardware > Fasteners. For ambiguous cases, we trained a random forest classifier on our 3,200 correctly-classified parts. The model learned patterns from part attributes and achieved 87% accuracy on test data. Parts where the model confidence was below 80% went to manual review queue. The combination of rules and ML handled the bulk of classification while keeping quality high.

I’m impressed by the 78% search accuracy improvement. How did you measure that? Did you use specific test queries or user feedback? We’re trying to build a business case for similar data quality initiatives and need concrete metrics to demonstrate ROI. Also curious if you noticed any downstream benefits beyond search - like improved reporting or analytics capabilities.