How do you standardize CAD attribute mapping across divisions with different classification systems?

PLM Windchill
, , , , , , , ,
1

Our company has grown through acquisitions and now operates with five engineering divisions, each using different CAD attribute naming conventions and classification hierarchies. We’re trying to implement enterprise-wide reporting and analytics, but the inconsistent attribute mapping is creating major data quality issues.

Division A uses attributes like ‘Mat_Type’ and ‘Finish_Code’, Division B uses ‘Material_Category’ and ‘Surface_Treatment’, and so on. Even when attributes represent the same property, the values are different-one division uses ‘AL6061’ while another uses ‘Aluminum-6061-T6’.

We need to standardize CAD attribute mapping without forcing all divisions to completely redo their existing CAD libraries and classification structures. What approaches have worked for others dealing with similar cross-division governance challenges? How do you balance standardization with divisional autonomy? Are there classification admin tools or techniques that help bridge these differences?

2

The key is separating the storage model from the presentation model. Let divisions keep their native attribute names and values in their CAD systems, but implement a canonical metadata layer in Windchill that maps these to standard enterprise attributes. Use Windchill’s classification framework to define enterprise standard classes with normalized attributes, then create attribute mapping rules that populate these standards from divisional source data. This approach works well because it doesn’t disrupt existing engineering workflows while enabling consistent enterprise analytics.

3

From a governance perspective, you need both technical solutions and organizational policies. Establish an enterprise data governance council with representatives from each division. They define the canonical attribute model and approve mapping rules. Technically, implement a master data management layer that handles attribute translation. Use Windchill’s extensible type and attribute framework to add enterprise attributes alongside divisional attributes. This dual-attribute approach maintains backwards compatibility while enabling standardization. For value standardization (like material codes), create lookup tables with equivalencies and implement validation rules that flag non-standard values.

4

Classification admin tools in Windchill can definitely help. Use the Classification Administrator to create a master taxonomy with enterprise standard attributes. Then leverage the attribute mapping features to define how each division’s attributes map to the master. The trick is using the ‘Internal Name’ versus ‘Display Name’ feature-let divisions keep their familiar display names while mapping to common internal names for reporting. This gives you standardization under the hood without forcing interface changes on users.

5

Having dealt with this across multiple enterprises, here’s a comprehensive approach to cross-division attribute standardization.

Attribute Mapping Standards: Implement a three-layer architecture: Division Layer (native attributes), Translation Layer (mapping logic), and Enterprise Layer (canonical model). The Division Layer preserves existing CAD attribute names and values-don’t force changes here initially. The Translation Layer uses Windchill’s attribute mapping framework to transform divisional attributes to enterprise standards. The Enterprise Layer defines canonical attributes used for reporting, analytics, and cross-division processes.

Create an enterprise attribute dictionary that defines standard names, data types, allowed values, and business definitions for each critical attribute. Start with 20-30 most important attributes (material, dimensions, cost, supplier, lifecycle state) rather than trying to standardize everything at once.

Classification Admin Tools: Leverage Windchill’s Classification framework extensively. Create an enterprise classification hierarchy (e.g., Mechanical Parts > Fasteners > Bolts) with standard attributes defined at each level. Use the Classification Administrator to:

  • Define master classes with canonical attributes
  • Create division-specific subclasses that inherit enterprise attributes but add local attributes
  • Implement attribute mapping rules using the ‘Internal Name’ feature for backend consistency while showing familiar ‘Display Names’ to users
  • Set up value mapping tables for enumerated attributes (material codes, finish types, etc.)

The key insight is that Windchill can maintain multiple attribute sets simultaneously. Parts can have both divisional and enterprise attributes, with automated synchronization between them.

Cross-Division Governance: Establish a federated governance model. Create an Enterprise Data Governance Council with representatives from each division, IT, and business stakeholders. This council owns the canonical attribute model and approves changes. However, give divisions autonomy for attributes that don’t impact cross-division processes.

Implement governance in phases:

Phase 1: Standardize attributes critical for enterprise reporting (materials, costs, suppliers)

Phase 2: Standardize attributes needed for cross-division reuse (dimensions, interfaces, specifications)

Phase 3: Standardize remaining attributes as business value justifies

For value standardization, create master data tables for common domains (material codes, supplier IDs, unit of measure). Implement validation rules that flag non-standard values but don’t block creation-use soft governance initially, tightening over time as data quality improves.

Use Windchill’s business rule framework to implement automatic attribute translation. When a part is created in Division A with ‘Mat_Type=AL6061’, a rule automatically populates the enterprise attribute ‘Material_Standard=Aluminum-6061-T6’. This happens transparently without user intervention.

For reporting and analytics, always query against enterprise attributes, not divisional attributes. This insulates your analytics from divisional variations. Build data quality dashboards that show compliance with enterprise standards by division, creating visibility and accountability.

The organizational aspect is crucial-position standardization as enabling cross-division collaboration and reuse, not as corporate mandates. Show concrete benefits like improved search, better supplier negotiations through consolidated spend visibility, and faster new product introduction through component reuse. Success requires patience and incremental progress rather than big-bang transformation.

6

We faced this exact situation after three acquisitions. Our solution was to implement a canonical attribute model at the enterprise level while maintaining division-specific classifications. We created mapping tables that translate divisional attributes to enterprise standard attributes during data synchronization. It’s not perfect, but it enables cross-division reporting without forcing immediate standardization on the divisions.