I’m evaluating our EBOM import strategy in Aras 12.0 and would appreciate perspectives on CAD Connector automated imports versus manual import processes. Our current workflow has design engineers manually creating part structures after completing CAD assemblies, which gives us control over metadata cleanup and allows review before parts enter the system.
However, we’re seeing increasing error rates - about 15-20% of manually created BOMs have quantity discrepancies or missing components compared to the actual CAD assembly. The automation vs control tradeoff is the key question here. CAD Connector would eliminate manual transcription errors but we’d lose the review step where engineers clean up CAD metadata that isn’t PLM-ready.
What have others experienced with structure accuracy when using automated CAD imports? Does the reduction in human error outweigh the loss of manual cleanup opportunities?
I’d challenge the assumption that you lose control with automation. We implemented CAD Connector with a validation workflow that flags imported structures for engineering review when certain conditions are met - unusual quantities, missing properties, non-standard part numbers. This gives us automation benefits while maintaining quality gates. The workflow checks about 30 different rules and only escalates the 10-15% that need human attention. The other 85% flow through automatically with perfect accuracy since they’re coming directly from the CAD system.
We switched from manual to CAD Connector about two years ago and saw accuracy improve dramatically. Our error rate dropped from around 18% to less than 3%. The key was investing time upfront in CAD template standardization so metadata was clean at the source. Yes, you lose manual review, but the consistency gains are worth it.
From a designer perspective, manual EBOM creation is extremely time-consuming and error-prone. I spend 2-3 hours per assembly transcribing BOM data that already exists in my CAD system. The real solution is fixing metadata quality at the CAD level rather than trying to clean it up during manual PLM entry. Implement CAD templates with required property fields and validation rules in your CAD system first.