We’re evaluating whether to automate our CAD data approval workflows or maintain manual engineering review. Currently, every CAD file change requires three approvers (design engineer, manufacturing engineer, quality engineer) to manually review and sign off. This takes 3-5 days per change.
Automation could use rule-based checks: geometry validation, material compliance, manufacturing feasibility analysis. This would reduce approval time to hours instead of days, significantly accelerating our release cycles. However, there’s concern about losing the human judgment that catches design issues automated rules might miss.
I’m interested in hearing from teams that have implemented workflow automation rules while maintaining compliance requirements. What’s the right balance between speed and thoroughness? Are hybrid approval models where automation handles routine changes and humans review complex ones the answer?
The speed versus compliance debate misses a key point: automation improves compliance when implemented correctly. Manual reviews are subject to human fatigue, inconsistent interpretation of standards, and time pressure shortcuts. Automated rules apply standards consistently every single time. We’ve actually reduced non-conformances since implementing automated checks because nothing slips through due to reviewer oversight. The key is investing in comprehensive rule development upfront and continuously refining rules based on escaped defects.
Consider implementing automated checks as a pre-approval gate rather than replacing human approval entirely. Configure Agile workflows so that CAD changes must pass automated validation before entering the manual approval queue. This catches obvious errors early (missing properties, geometry violations, non-compliant materials) and ensures human reviewers only see changes that meet baseline quality standards. Reduces manual review burden while preserving human oversight for judgment-based decisions. We reduced approval queue backlog by 40% using this approach because reviewers aren’t wasting time on changes that fail basic checks.
From a quality perspective, full automation is risky unless your rule engine is extremely sophisticated. We tried automating approvals and caught several cases where parts passed all automated checks but had subtle design flaws that would’ve caused field failures. Manual review by experienced engineers catches things like thermal expansion interactions, assembly interference under load conditions, and serviceability issues that are hard to codify into rules. Speed isn’t worth the risk if it leads to recalls or warranty claims.