Our organization uses multiple CAD systems (Creo, SolidWorks, and CATIA) all integrated with Windchill 12.0 CPS05. We’re struggling to establish consistent configuration management across these platforms because each CAD system handles attributes, versioning, and configuration differently.
Creo uses Windchill’s native configuration management with variant specifications and options/choices. SolidWorks has its own configuration tables that we’re trying to map to Windchill. CATIA uses a completely different approach with publication structures and configurations.
The cross-system configuration complexity is creating major integration challenges:
<ConfigSpec system="Creo">
<Option name="Material" values="Steel,Aluminum"/>
<Choice name="Finish" values="Painted,Anodized"/>
</ConfigSpec>
How are others handling multi-CAD integration with unified configuration management? Do you try to standardize attribute mapping across all systems, or maintain separate configuration approaches with translation layers? What about versioning standards - do you enforce consistent version schemes across all CAD systems?
For versioning standards, we enforce Windchill’s version scheme as the master. Each CAD system’s native version gets mapped to Windchill’s version format during check-in. We use a custom numbering service that normalizes all CAD versions to a common format: major.minor.iteration. The original CAD version is stored as an attribute for reference, but Windchill’s version is what drives all PLM processes. This requires careful configuration of each CAD integration adapter.
The key is establishing a common configuration ontology at the Windchill level, then mapping each CAD system’s concepts to that ontology. We defined standard option/choice structures in Windchill, then created mapping rules for how Creo configurations, SolidWorks configurations, and CATIA publications translate to those standards. The mapping happens during check-in through custom adapters. This way, users work natively in their CAD tools, but Windchill sees consistent configuration data across all systems.
I think attribute mapping is the hardest part. Each CAD system has different parameter naming conventions and data types. We created a central attribute dictionary that defines standard PLM attributes, then maintain mapping tables for each CAD system showing how their native attributes map to the standard set. This enables cross-CAD searches and reports in Windchill even though the underlying CAD data is structured differently.