Quick team snapshot and priorities

• How many people on your engineering team regularly create or edit CAD files? Options: 1-5, 6-15, 16-50, 51-150, 150+
• Which CAD discipline accounts for most of your daily work, mechanical, electrical, sheet-metal, large assemblies, or a mix? Options: Mechanical, Electrical, Sheet-metal, Large assemblies, Mixed disciplines
• On a typical workday, how often does an engineer open or save files larger than 100 MB? Options: Multiple times per hour, Hourly, A few times per day, Once per day, Less often
• Identify the formal owner of CAD data and revision decisions in your organization, role or title please. Options: CAD manager, Director of Engineering, PLM lead, IT/Infrastructure owner, No formal owner
• If your engineering director could name one measurable result that would define success for this project, what would it be?

Where the day-to-day breaks into downtime

• Tell me about the last time an overwritten file or wrong revision reached manufacturing, what happened and who noticed it first?
• In the past 12 months, how many incidents like that have occurred? Options: None, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 10+
• When recovery is required, how long does it typically take to locate the correct revision and resume work? Options: Under 1 hour, 1-4 hours, One day, 2-5 days, More than a week
• Estimate the typical downstream cost when a wrong revision is used, for example rework hours, scrapped parts, or delayed shipment.
• Name the role that is held accountable for preventing these failures, or indicate if responsibility is shared. Options: CAD manager, Engineering lead, Manufacturing lead, Quality manager, Shared / no single owner
• If one unresolved CAD revision risk could stop this project immediately, which risk would that be?

Alternatives on the table — what you are comparing

• List the solution categories you are actively evaluating or have used before for CAD revision control and search. Options: Incumbent PDM/PLM, Network file shares with manual versioning, Cloud file sync service, In-house scripts / tools, A vault with file-system interception, Do nothing / status quo, Other
• What conditions would have to be true about your current approach for you to keep it instead of switching to a new vault?
• Has anyone on your team proposed building an internal solution rather than buying one? Options: Yes, active proposal, Yes, informal idea, No
• Tell us the one demonstration your incumbent would need to show in a short pilot to keep you from switching this quarter.
• Which of the options you listed would require the least change to engineers' daily save/open workflow? Options: Incumbent PDM/PLM, Network file shares, Cloud sync, In-house tool, File-interception vault, None of the above

How engineers actually work — the real save-open-edit cycle

• Walk me step-by-step through an engineer's morning when they resume work on a 500+ part assembly, where do they look for files and what slows them?
• Select the locations engineers commonly use for active CAD work today. Options: Shared network drive, Local workstation, Downloads folder, Personal cloud sync folder, Existing PDM/vault, Other
• Give a rough percentage split for working from local copies versus opening files from a shared location. Options: Mostly local (75%+), Mixed (50/50), Mostly shared (75%+), I don't know
• Describe any naming, folder, or low-friction conventions engineers rely on to find the 'latest' model.
• What's the maximum additional open/save time per operation your team would accept from a vault before pausing a pilot? Options: <100 ms, 100-300 ms, 300-800 ms, 800 ms - 2 s, >2 s

Search, reuse, and the cost of reinvention

• In the last month, tell me about an instance where an engineer recreated a part because they could not find an existing model — why did that happen?
• Select the search failures that cause the most rework and wasted hours. Options: Missing metadata, Inconsistent naming, No released drawing linked, Poor assembly relationship indexing, Slow search responses
• Approximately what portion of your parts library lacks usable metadata or an approved revision? Options: <10%, 10-30%, 30-60%, 60-90%, >90%
• Typically, is the task of finding prior designs handled by design engineers, CAD admins, or another role, and how long does the search take on average? Options: Design engineers, <1 hour, Design engineers, 1-4 hours, CAD admins, <1 day, Cross-team effort, multiple days, Variable / depends
• Would exact search results that return assembly children and related drawings in one query eliminate most re-creations, and would you commit to a pilot this quarter to prove it? Options: Yes, commit to a pilot, Maybe, need more info, No, not at this time

Deployment and technical constraints we must surface now

• Describe the single access or dependency failure that would stop a migration before it begins.
• List the external systems that must be integrated during rollout and the internal owner for each (file servers, PLM, ERP, sync services).
• Identify whether a dedicated CAD admin or migration resource will be available during the deployment window. Options: Dedicated resource assigned, Partial availability, No dedicated resource
• How clean is your historical CAD repository for automated migration — mostly clean, mixed, or mostly inconsistent? Options: Mostly clean, Mixed quality, Mostly inconsistent, Unknown
• Are there legal, regulatory, or supplier agreements that restrict moving, indexing, or storing CAD files outside their current location? Options: Yes, significant restrictions, Some restrictions, manageable, No restrictions, Unsure — need to check
• Identify the single unresolved constraint that would force you to halt the project.

Designing the hands-on evaluation that proves the value

• Assume a two-week hands-on evaluation, what are the top three must-pass tests or capabilities for you?
• Give a target sample size for the evaluation — number of assemblies, typical MB sizes, and average child counts we should include.
• List the participants from your side who should join the evaluation and the person who will make the final acceptance decision.
• List the performance and reliability metrics you will use to accept the evaluation, for example average open time, search hit rate, and check-in success.
• Identify the person with authority to sign a commercial commitment if the evaluation meets your metrics, and the expected approval timeline.

Adoption, training, and rollout ownership

• List the stakeholders whose buy-in is required for the vault to reach daily use, for example engineering leads, CAD admins, IT, or manufacturing. Options: Engineering leads, CAD admins, IT/Infrastructure, Manufacturing, Quality, Procurement
• What training format and timeline would make engineers comfortable adopting a file-interception workflow within two weeks of go-live? Options: On-site workshops, Live remote sessions, Recorded tutorials + quick reference, Peer champions, Combination
• List any maintenance windows, release freezes, or supplier delivery dates that would limit migration timing.
• Name who will own rollback decisions, post-deployment issue triage, and the escalation path for critical failures.
• On which earliest date could you begin production rollout if the pilot validates performance and projected rework savings? Options: Within 2 weeks, Within 1 month, 1-3 months, 3+ months, Undecided

Next steps and deal-critical decisions

• What would need to happen in the next 14 days to move from conversation to a signed pilot engagement?
• Name the budget holder who must approve the pilot and describe their typical approval cycle.
• Describe your target window for running the pilot and a separate target window for full production rollout.
• List any remaining roadblocks that could stop you from signing within a month even if the hands-on pilot shows the agreed metrics.
• Would you like the seller to prepare a two-week evaluation plan and a migration readiness checklist for your review? Options: Yes, please prepare both, Prepare evaluation plan only, Prepare readiness checklist only, Not at this time

• Workflow Experience Walkthrough

• Confirm the current state and its cost to your team
• You confirm the demonstrated workflow eliminates the overwrites and wrong-revision deliveries you described in Discovery.
• Provide a representative set of assembly files and the top three scenarios where overwrites or wrong revisions occurred.
• Walk through your representative scenario end-to-end
• You confirm the measured open/save/check-in latency on your representative assembly meets your acceptable performance thresholds.
• Run the sample check-in/check-out and assembly revision test on the provided dataset and deliver timed results, screenshots, and any error logs before the follow-up meeting.
• Show assembly-level revision control with your assembly
• Define and confirm your acceptance thresholds for open/save latency and acceptable search response times.
• You agree on the acceptance criteria and the exact dataset to use for the Controlled Evaluation.
• Schedule the Controlled Evaluation window and name the engineering point of contact for the test window.
• Measure performance on a representative assembly
• Validate the demonstrated future state
• Agree remaining evidence and next steps before Controlled Evaluation

• Workflow Experience Walkthrough
• Workflow Experience Deck
• Workflow Experience Brief

• meeting
• slides
• document

• Install file-system interception agent
• Deploy CAD connectors for native tools
• Configure check-in/check-out workflows
• Implement automated revision control and history
• Import and migrate CAD files and drawings
• Reconcile assemblies, child parts, and drawing links
• Extract CAD metadata and build search index
• Configure search filters and reuse discovery
• Tune performance for target assembly sizes
• Configure role-based access and permissions
• Deploy backup, archival, and retention policies
• Train engineering team on daily vault workflows

Install file-system interception agent

• Identify the network share paths (UNC or NAS) that currently hold canonical CAD files and should be intercepted
• Provide the operating systems and workstation types where the interception agent must run (examples: Windows 10 desktop, Windows Server file host) Options: Windows 10/11 desktop, Windows Server file host, Linux NAS (SMB), Mixed environment
• List the expected peak concurrent engineers who will access intercepted shares during design hours Options: 1-10, 11-50, 51-200, 200+
• Do you permit installing an agent on engineer workstations, or must interception be limited to the file-server layer? Options: Agent on workstations allowed, Only file-server / NAS integration allowed, Need to evaluate both options
• Describe any existing endpoint controls that could block file interception (antivirus, application allowlists, disk encryption) and the owner of those controls
• Who will authorize agent installation and provide admin credentials for test installs? Options: IT operations, CAD manager / engineering lead, Site operations manager, Other

Deploy CAD connectors for native tools

• Identify the primary desktop CAD application categories in your environment (select all that apply) Options: Direct-modeling CAD, Parametric 3D CAD (feature-based), 2D drafting tool, Multi-CAD mix
• Provide the deployment preference for connector integration inside CAD UI versus file-system-level connector behavior Options: In-CAD toolbar / plugin required, File-system interception only, Both options preferred for testing
• List the CAD file families and extensions that must be recognized by connectors (examples: part, assembly, drawing, neutral export)
• Do you use any custom CAD macros or company-specific APIs that the connector must preserve or call during check-in? Options: Yes - custom macros exist, No custom macros, Not sure - need discovery
• Name the group who will install and validate the connector in pilot workstations Options: CAD admin team, IT desktop team, Engineering champions, Third-party integrator
• Estimate the number of CAD workstations to include in the initial connector pilot Options: 1-5, 6-20, 21-50, 50+

Configure check-in/check-out workflows

• Choose the check-out model you prefer for engineers working on parts and assemblies Options: Exclusive lock (single editor), Soft-lock with merge notifications, Optimistic with conflict resolution prompts
• How many simultaneous editors on a single assembly do you typically see during peak design cycles? Options: 1, 2-3, 4-10, 10+
• Indicate folder patterns that should auto-trigger check-in protection (examples: Downloads, Drafts, Engineering/Work-in-Progress)
• Specify the acceptance criteria that will validate check-in/check-out reliability during the evaluation (examples: zero overwrite incidents in 2 weeks, successful locked-open for N editors, conflict resolution time under X minutes)
• Select the metadata fields you require captured at check-in for audit and search Options: Part number, Revision, Change reason / comment, Author / user, Related BOM/assembly
• Who will own final sign-off on check-in/check-out workflows at the end of the pilot? Options: CAD manager, Director of engineering, IT operations, Cross-functional committee

Implement automated revision control and history

• Specify the revision schema your engineering team uses today for parts and drawings (examples: numeric, letter with release suffix, semantic) Options: Numeric (1,2,3), Letter (A,B,C) with release suffix, Semantic (1.0.0), No formal schema
• Select how assembly-level revisions should roll up to child parts and drawings Options: Assembly and children must rev together (atomic unit), Each file can have independent revisioning, Custom rules per part type
• Confirm whether you require preservation of full history with timestamps, user IDs, and file diffs for each revision Options: Full history required, Timestamps and user only, Minimal history acceptable
• Choose the preferred revision bump behavior on check-in Options: Automatic increment on check-in, Manual revision by approver, Configurable per part type
• Explain which compliance or audit reports must be generated from revision history (examples: revisions by part number, change reasons between dates)
• Select the owner responsible for approving automated revision rules and policy changes Options: Engineering change board / ECR owner, CAD manager, Quality assurance, IT operations

Import and migrate CAD files and drawings

• Estimate the number of files and total storage size that must be migrated (provide ranges if exact counts are unknown) Options: Under 10k files / <1 TB, 10k-100k files / 1-10 TB, 100k-500k files / 10-50 TB, 500k+ files / 50+ TB
• Specify the migration completeness threshold you require for go-live acceptance (examples: 95% files with intact links, 99% of released drawings)
• Identify the canonical source locations to scan during migration (examples: \\share\Engineering, \NAS\CADVault, user Downloads folders)
• Do legacy files require filename normalization or part-number reconciliation during migration? Options: Yes - normalization required, No - migrate as-is, Partial - only released folders
• Select whether you require a dry-run migration and validation report before production cutover Options: Dry-run and report required, Dry-run optional, No dry-run required
• Indicate which categories of files should be excluded from migration (examples: personal backups, temporary files, external supplier packages)

Reconcile assemblies, child parts, and drawing links

• Describe how assemblies are currently organized (examples: single-folder BOM, folder-per-assembly, distributed parts across projects)
• Estimate the percentage of assemblies that currently have broken references or unresolved child links Options: <5%, 5-15%, 16-40%, 40%+
• Indicate the naming convention used to map part numbers to filenames (examples: PN1234 in filename, freeform naming, folder-based numbering) Options: Part number in filename, Freeform naming, Folder-controlled naming, Mixed
• Select the threshold assembly sizes that must be validated for correct child resolution during testing Options: Assemblies <100 children, 100-1,000 children, 1,000-10,000 children, 10,000+ children
• Who will resolve ambiguous link mappings discovered during reconciliation (engineering SMEs, CAD admin, IT, third-party consultant)? Options: Engineering SMEs, CAD admin, IT operations, Third-party integrator
• Provide examples of 3 assemblies (by folder path or part number) to use as canonical test cases for link reconciliation

Extract CAD metadata and build search index

• Select the CAD metadata fields required to be extracted into the index (examples: part number, material, mass, custom property tags) Options: Part number, Material, Mass/weight, Custom properties, BOM usage count
• Do you require extraction of derived properties from CAD files (examples: bounding box, number of faces, center of mass)? Options: Yes - derived properties required, No - metadata only, Only a selected subset
• Specify how often the index should refresh to capture new check-ins (real-time, hourly, nightly) Options: Real-time / near real-time, Hourly, Nightly
• List any custom property names or company-specific metadata fields that must be mapped into the search index (provide exact property keys)
• Indicate sample part numbers or drawing IDs to validate index extraction accuracy (up to 5 examples)
• Who will own ongoing metadata curation and index tuning after handover? Options: CAD admin, Engineering data steward, IT operations, Shared ownership

Configure search filters and reuse discovery

• Select the search facets that are most important for reuse discovery (examples: part number, revision, material, assembly usage) Options: Part number, Revision, Material, Last modified, Assembly usage count
• Do you require geometry-based similarity search in addition to metadata filters? Options: Yes - geometry similarity required, No - metadata-only search, Not sure - need demonstration
• Choose preferred reuse actions when a matching part is found (examples: copy-as-new, link-to-original, insert-as-child) Options: Copy-as-new, Link-to-original, Insert-as-child, Open-for-edit
• Would you like alias or synonym mapping for common part names to improve search recall? Options: Yes - alias mapping required, No - exact-match only, Partial - for top 100 part names
• Indicate which user groups should have saved searches, watchlists, or notification subscriptions for part reuse Options: All engineers, Team leads only, Manufacturing and engineering, Custom groups
• How will you measure reuse discovery success during evaluation (examples: reduced duplicate parts, hours saved per month)?

Tune performance for target assembly sizes

• List representative assembly sizes (part counts and referenced files) that should be used for performance testing (provide 2-3 examples)
• Specify the maximum open/save latency in seconds for a representative assembly that you will accept during the evaluation
• Estimate the number of concurrent engineers that may open the same large assembly during peak design sessions Options: 1-5, 6-20, 21-50, 50+
• Indicate any site network constraints to consider for performance tests (examples: 100 Mbps site WAN, 50 ms round-trip latency)
• Choose whether desktop caching or selective sync for assemblies is required to meet performance targets Options: Desktop caching required, Selective sync required, No caching - real-time only
• Select the performance metrics you require captured in test reports (examples: first-open time, subsequent-open time, search latency) Options: First-open time, Subsequent-open time, Search latency, Concurrency throughput

Configure role-based access and permissions

• How many distinct user roles do you expect to define for the vault (examples: engineer, approver, manufacturing consumer, viewer)? Options: 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 10+
• Select which operations should be restricted by role (examples: check-in, delete, change revision, export) Options: Check-in, Delete, Change revision, Export / Save As, View only
• Do you require integration with an existing identity provider for single sign-on (examples: Active Directory, LDAP) Options: Yes - AD/LDAP integration required, No - local accounts acceptable, Plan to integrate later
• Choose whether project-based or global roles best match your workflows Options: Project-based roles (scoped per project), Global roles across all projects, Hybrid model
• Who will be responsible for managing permissions after deployment (CAD admin, IT, or delegated project leads)? Options: CAD admin, IT operations, Delegated project leads, Shared responsibility
• Indicate any regulatory constraints that require strict role segregation (examples: ISO traceability, export control) Options: Yes - regulatory segregation required, No regulatory constraints, Unsure - need assessment

• gaps
• success_criteria
• decision_readiness
• desired_state
• stakeholders
• current_state
• gaps
• desired_state
• stakeholders
• current_state
• decision_readiness
• success_criteria
• desired_state
• current_state
• gaps
• success_criteria
• stakeholders
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness

• Subscription Agreement / Order Form
• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Service Level Agreement (SLA)
• Data Processing Agreement (DPA)
• Data Access Authorization
• Acceptance Criteria & Go/No-Go Authorization
• Payment Schedule & Invoice Terms
• Change Order Agreement

• Go-live Health Check (weeks 1-4)
• First Measurement Review (weeks 4-10)
• Acceptance Gate Review (around day 90)
• Quarterly Success Review (ongoing)

• Maintain a shared channel for issue reporting and enhancement requests with a documented triage SLA and owner list.
• Schedule a technical detailed review for any performance issues where average file open/save latency exceeds the agreed operating envelope.
• Restate acceptance criteria and numeric targets recorded in Controlled Evaluation
• Produce a documented pass or fail for each numeric acceptance criterion recorded in Controlled Evaluation, with the acceptance decision captured by the named signatory where required.
• Confirm the incumbent system is decommissioned or retained read-only, and close the fallback habit risk for users.
• If any criteria failed, agree a remediation plan with owners and dates that closes the loop by the agreed resolution timeline.
• Publish the acceptance decision record showing pass/fail per criterion, named signatory, and any conditional acceptance language.
• If applicable, open prioritized remediation tickets for failed criteria with resolution deadlines and interim checkpoints.
• Confirm and schedule the quarterly operational review cadence for ongoing measurement and issue management.
• Adoption and usage trends
• Ensure weekly active user adoption rate and assembly revision consistency rate remain within acceptable bounds, or have an active remediation plan.
• Keep the enhancement and issue backlog prioritized with named owners and target delivery windows.
• Confirm incident response readiness and that high-priority incidents have clear closure criteria.
• Publish the quarterly operational summary with metric trends, open issues, and assigned owners within 3 business days.
• Deliver a remediation update for any metric below target, including work completed and next milestones, before the next quarterly review.
• Re-confirm success criteria and owners
• Confirm the integration and data migration completed without showstopper defects for production use.
• Document and assign owners and deadlines for all open blockers raised during go-live.
• Agree the schedule and owner for the First Measurement Review within 4 to 10 weeks.
• Publish the go-live validation checklist with pass/fail notes and owners within 24 hours.
• Capture and circulate the list of users who need follow-up onboarding if they have not performed a check-in/check-out in the first 7 days.
• Create a triage ticket for each technical blocker with a target resolution date and escalation path.
• Present first measurement data
• Determine whether check-in/check-out reliability rate and search effectiveness are moving toward the Controlled Evaluation targets, or identify required corrective actions if not.
• Assign concrete remediation tasks with owners and dates to close gaps before the Acceptance Gate.
• Confirm the data sources and dashboards that will feed the Acceptance Gate decision.
• Deliver a metric data pack that includes raw logs, sample failed workflows, and dashboard exports for the Acceptance Gate review.
• Implement the highest-impact corrective action for the top metric gap and report progress at the weekly triage until resolved.
• Present outcome data against each criterion
• Operational performance and reliability
• Deployment and migration validation
• Diagnose root causes for any gaps
• Document pass/fail per criterion and formal acceptance decision
• Early adoption signals and usage patterns
• Open issues and enhancement requests backlog
• Agree corrective actions with owners and dates
• Open technical and process blockers
• Confirm timeline to Acceptance Gate
• Incident follow-up and escalation status
• Legacy system wind-down verification
• Agree immediate remediation actions
• Agree remediation plan for any failed criteria
• Confirm next quarter checkpoints