DS-JUN26-PG46+47_Layout 1 16/06/2026 13:19 Page 1


FEATURE DESIGN & MANUFACTURING


Closing the manufa between design, produ


As products and manufacturing systems become more complex,


maintaining reliable product data across the lifecycle will become increasingly important, as Ian Mottashed, product manager PC-DMIS, Hexagon, explains


D


igital tools have transformed modern manufacturing. Engineers today work with advanced CAD systems, automated


machining strategies and sophisticated metrology technologies capable of measuring components with micron-level precision. Yet despite this progress, a persistent


problem remains within many manufacturing environments: data disconnects between design, production and inspection. Engineering teams create detailed 3D


models that define the geometry, tolerances and requirements of a product. But as this information moves through the manufacturing process, it is often reinterpreted, recreated or manually transferred between systems. This fragmented flow of information slows processes, introduces risk and makes it harder to maintain traceability across the product lifecycle. As product complexity increases and quality


requirements tighten, manufacturers are increasingly looking for ways to ensure that design intent moves seamlessly from CAD through manufacturing to inspection.


the data disConneCt between design and manufaCturing In principle, digital manufacturing workflows should be seamless. Design data created in CAD systems should flow directly into manufacturing and quality processes.


4 DESIGN SOLUTIONS JUNE 2026 6 In reality, many organisations still rely on


disconnected tools and manual data translation. Design engineers may create intricately


detailed product definitions within CAD environments. These models contain the geometry of the part along with critical product manufacturing information, including tolerances, annotations and feature definitions. However, downstream teams often rely on


drawings or exported data to interpret that information. Manufacturing engineers may extract dimensions from models to generate machining programs, while quality engineers may review drawings to define inspection routines in metrology software. Each step can introduce inefficiencies.


Information may need to be interpreted multiple times, recreated within different systems, or manually verified. As a result, the original design intent can become fragmented as it moves across the workflow. When quality issues occur, tracing the


root cause can be difficult if product data has been recreated multiple times along the process chain.


manual pmi and gd&t entry: a sourCe of ineffiCienCy A common source of inefficiency in this process is the handling of product manufacturing information (PMI) and geometric dimensioning


and tolerancing (GD&T). These elements define how a component


must be manufactured and inspected. They specify the tolerances, datums and feature relationships that ensure a part functions as intended. In many organisations, however,


this information still requires manual interpretation when creating inspection programs or manufacturing strategies. A quality engineer may review a drawing


or CAD model and then manually recreate GD&T definitions inside inspection software. Similarly, manufacturing engineers may interpret tolerances when defining machining parameters. While routine, this process introduces two


problems. Firstly, manual re-entry consumes engineering time. Teams spend effort recreating data that already exists within the design model. Secondly, manual interpretation introduces


risk. Complex GD&T definitions can be misread or incorrectly applied when transferred between systems. Even small discrepancies can result in measurement errors, non- conforming parts or costly rework. As products become more complex, these


risks increase. Manufacturers therefore need workflows that allow design intent to flow directly into manufacturing and inspection systems without manual intervention.


www.designsolutionsmag.co.uk


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52