Cutting manual CAD work in a composites R&D team
A controlled pilot evaluated assisted CAD scripts for repetitive boundary and layup steps, with engineers retaining every decision.
R&D engineers design carbon-fibre parts in CAD. Certain boundary and layup steps are precise, repetitive and slow, and they vary subtly by part, so a single template breaks. The know-how sat with a few senior engineers, and the manual steps were a bottleneck on every new design.
Precise but repetitive
The boundary and layup steps ate senior engineers' time.
Every part is a little different
A naive template breaks, so the steps resisted simple automation.
An unforgiving platform
Small errors in the CAD automation cost real rework.
Knowledge with a few people
The method left the building when they did.
We built assisted scripts that handle the repetitive boundary and layup steps, parameterized to the part, with the engineer reviewing and adjusting each result. The scripts are advisory: they propose, the engineer disposes, and nothing changes without a check.
We shipped narrow and reliable first (the simplest geometry) and widened coverage only as each step was proven against the engineer's own test parts.
- Assisted boundary and layup scripts, parameterized per part
- Advisory output the engineer reviews in their existing CAD tool
- A tested baseline and a documented limit of where it applies
- No forced change to the existing workflow
One expensive problem, proven before it scales. The A1 to POC method, run in weeks not quarters.
Our delivery practices define human decision ownership, source and output traceability, data boundaries, change control and review evidence.
The credential is held personally by Vincent Lin.
Have a problem like this?
Bring your messiest operational problem. We will examine fit, available evidence, the first pass/fail gate, and reasons not to proceed.
Discuss an operations problem