Engineering Workflow Standardization

If your engineers are spending more time managing paperwork than managing processes, that is not a productivity problem. That is a workflow problem. And workflow problems have solutions. I recently met an engineer, his name is Faizal. A Senior process engineer. Twelve years with the company. The kind of guy who knew every machine on the floor by sound alone. Every time something changed on the production line, Faizal was the one who caught it. A valve adjustment. A pressure tweak. A sequence that needed updating because a vendor changed their specs last minute. He would scribble it down in his notebook first. Then type it up. Then send it to his supervisor for sign-off. Then the supervisor would bring it to the weekly ops meeting. The meeting would run long because someone always had questions. Someone else was not in the room. They would schedule a follow-up. Meanwhile, Faizal’s change note sat in an email thread, buried under thirty replies. By the time the paper form made its way through department heads, got printed, signed, scanned, and filed into a cabinet on level three, two weeks had passed. Sometimes more. And sometimes, the form never came back at all. He once spent forty minutes searching for an approved change note from eight months ago. A compliance audit was coming. The document existed. He had seen it. He just could not find it. On day, he told his manager: “I spend more time chasing paper than I do solving actual problems.” His manager nodded. He had heard this before. From other engineers. In other departments. Across different sites. The problem was not Faizal. The problem was a process built for a time when paper was the only option. When Faizal’s company moved their change management workflow into DocuWare, a few things happened almost immediately. Change notes were submitted digitally, with version control. Approvals happened through automated routing, no more chasing signatures across floors. Every document was timestamped, traceable, and retrievable in seconds. And the audit that used to take days of frantic searching, took under an hour. Faizal still carries his notebook. Old habits. But now it is just for his own thinking. Everything else has a proper home. What does your change management process look like today?

"We have to do ASPICE AND ISO 26262. Double the work." No. You're doing it wrong. Here's the thing most automotive engineers miss: ASPICE and ISO 26262 are complementary, not cumulative. ASPICE = Process capability framework. ISO 26262 = Functional safety standard. They're designed to work together. ISO 26262-compliant software development relies on the process capability that ASPICE provides. And ASPICE offers the perfect framework for integrating the safety activities that ISO 26262 requires. Combining them doesn't double your effort. Done right, it reduces it. How? 1. SHARED ARTIFACTS Requirements traceability? Both need it. Do it once. Configuration management? Both need it. Do it once. Change management? Both need it. Do it once. 2. ALIGNED REVIEWS ASPICE wants process reviews. ISO 26262 wants safety reviews. Combine them. One meeting, two checkboxes. 3. INTEGRATED WORKFLOWS Don't have separate "ASPICE activities" and "safety activities." Have "engineering activities" that satisfy both frameworks by design. The problem isn't the standards. The problem is treating them as separate compliance exercises instead of integrated engineering discipline. Here's the shift: OLD: "We need to be ASPICE Level 3 AND ISO 26262 ASIL D compliant." NEW: "We need to build safety-critical software with mature processes." The first framing creates bureaucracy. The second creates engineering excellence. What to do Monday: 1. Map your ASPICE artifacts to ISO 26262 work products 2. Identify overlaps (there are dozens) 3. Merge redundant documentation 4. Create integrated checklists You're probably doing 40% more work than necessary. Cut the duplication. Ship faster. Stay compliant. Where's your biggest overlap between ASPICE and 26262 activities? #automotive #aspice #iso26262

When ACC Collaboration Replaced ISO 19650 Publishing On one high-profile project, the team decided to “go fully digital” using Autodesk Construction Cloud. Everyone worked live in ACC Collaboration architects, engineers, even external consultants. At first, it felt smooth: models synced instantly, changes appeared in real time, and coordination seemed faster. But the problems came later. The problem: - Models were synced live but never formally published through ISO states (WIP → Shared → Published). - No review or approval cycle whatever was in the central model was assumed to be “the latest.” - A structural update overwritten without review caused major clashes with the MEP systems. - When the contractor requested “the Published IFC,” there was no traceable, approved version, only an unstable live model. The impact: - Weeks of rework due to installations based on unapproved models. - Loss of client confidence in the CDE process. - Endless debates between consultants: “We updated live, why didn’t you coordinate?” vs. “We were waiting for Published.” The recovery plan: - Re-introduced the ISO 19650 publishing cycle inside ACC with a clear workflow for moving models through states: WIP → Shared → Published → Archive. - Configured folder permissions and approval workflows in ACC. - Set a clear rule: live collaboration for internal teams only; publishing for contractual deliverables. - Enforced approval gates in ACC before any file moved to Shared or Published. - Defined a single source of truth: only Published = valid deliverable. Key lessons: - ACC Collaboration is a working method. It accelerates design, but it is not a substitute for publishing. - ISO 19650 workflows are governance. Without them, there’s no accountability or traceability. Projects fail when the two modes of working are mixed without clear rules. Takeaway: Use ACC Collaboration for speed, but enforce ISO 19650 publishing for control. Without that boundary, you end up with chaos disguised as progress. Have you seen teams confuse live co-authoring with formal publishing? What was the result? #BIM #ISO19650 #DigitalDelivery #CDE #AutodeskConstructionCloud #ACCCollaboration #DesignCollaboration #ProjectDelivery #ConstructionTechnology #AEC

✅ Revit Template Checklist – Essential Setup for a Standardized Workflow A well-structured Revit template ensures consistency, efficiency, and a smoother workflow across projects. Below is a comprehensive checklist to help you set up and optimize your Revit template. 🔹 1. General Project Setup ✅ Project Units – Set to the correct measurement system (Metric/Imperial). ✅ Levels & Grids – Predefined and named according to project standards. ✅ Project Base Point & Survey Point – Properly aligned for coordination. ✅ Worksets – Configured for multi-user collaboration. ✅ View Templates – Standardized templates for plans, sections, elevations, and details. ✅ Phase Filters & Phase Settings – Predefined for renovation or phased projects. 🔹 2. Families & Components ✅ Standardized Title Blocks – Company-branded with correct parameters. ✅ Preloaded System Families – Walls, floors, roofs, ceilings, and stairs. ✅ Commonly Used Components – Doors, windows, furniture, casework, etc. ✅ Shared Parameters File – Configured for scheduling and consistency. ✅ Annotation Families – Dimensions, tags, symbols, and keynotes. ✅ Line Styles & Fill Patterns – Standardized for drafting consistency. 🔹 3. Views & Sheets Organization ✅ Project Browser Organization – Logical structure for easy navigation. ✅ Predefined Sheets & Sheet Naming Convention – Aligned with documentation standards. ✅ 3D Views & Perspective Templates – For visualization and coordination. ✅ Schedules – Preconfigured material, quantity, and element schedules. ✅ Legends & Keynotes – Pre-created for consistent annotation. 🔹 4. Visibility & Graphics ✅ Object Styles – Standardized settings for line weights and materials. ✅ View Filters & Graphic Overrides – Predefined for better model readability. ✅ Cut Patterns & Surface Patterns – Configured to industry standards. ✅ Section & Elevation Markers – Consistently formatted across views. 🔹 5. Model Performance & Optimization ✅ Purge Unused Elements – Remove unnecessary families and views. ✅ Audit the Model – Check for corrupt or redundant elements. ✅ Revit Links & CAD Imports – Properly managed and cleaned. ✅ File Size Optimization – Ensure the template remains lightweight. 🔹 6. Collaboration & Standards Compliance ✅ BIM Execution Plan (BEP) Compliance – Template aligned with project workflows. ✅ Worksharing Setup – Predefined worksets for a coordinated workflow. ✅ IFC Export & Import Settings – Configured for interoperability. ✅ Clash Detection Settings – Pre-set for coordination with Navisworks/Solibri. ✅ Project Revision Standards – Revision tracking and issue management set up. 🔹 Conclusion A well-prepared Revit template saves time, ensures consistency, and improves collaboration. By following this checklist, you can streamline your workflow and enhance BIM efficiency. What other essential elements do you include in your Revit templates? Let’s discuss! 🚀💡 #BIM #Revit #AEC #DigitalConstruction

Engineering transformation is not optional anymore, it’s a race against irrelevance! For years, we’ve all seen the same patterns in product development. - Mechanical, E/E and software teams working in isolation. - Complexity growing faster than our ability to manage it. - Errors discovered too late. - Interfaces that don’t fit. Integration often feels like assembling a puzzle… only to realize that half the pieces were built from entirely different pictures. Weeks, sometimes months, lost not because of bad engineering, but because of fragmented engineering. And yet, despite knowing these problems for years, many organizations are still waiting. Waiting for the “right moment.” Waiting for clearer standards. Waiting for others to move first. That moment is gone. Global competitors have already picked up speed and are exerting pressure. With Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) and AI reaching real maturity, we finally have the tools to fix what we’ve been complaining about for a decade. The question is no longer if transformation will happen. The question is: how fast can you move? Here’s how Vlad and I currently think about it in 9 concrete steps: 1. Adopt and mature MBSE - Build system models that truly reflect your product, not just documentation. 2. Derive domain-specific models from system models - Create consistent, hierarchical product structures across all domains and disciplines. 3. Capture all engineering artifacts From requirements (RFLP) over testing to homologation, make everything explicit and create development templates. 4. Link all artifacts via a knowledge graph - Enable impact chain analysis based on a solid engineering ontology. 5. Standardize and accelerate component development - Align tools, data and processes for each discipline and component 6. Build cross-domain CI/CD pipelines - Enable fast, automated iteration across requirements, architecture, design, simulation and testing. 7. Rationalize the toolchain (APIs over UIs) - Tools must be controllable from the outside enabling agent-based workflows. 8. Make engineering knowledge machine-readable - Document not just the what, but the how and why. Only then can agents effectively navigate engineering-specific challenges. 9. Define the future work split - Clarify what engineers do and what AI agents should handle. Establish strong human-in-the-loop validation. The core message is simple: Engineering excellence in the future will not come from better tools alone. It will come from how well we connect systems, data, people and agents. Companies that start building this foundation now will gain speed. Those who wait will struggle to catch up. What’s missing from your perspective? Which steps would you add to make this transformation truly work? Timmo Sturm | Daniel Spiess | Sebastian Linzmair | Sascha Bach | Rick Bouter

Engineering Velocity: Reflections on Designing and Building Automotive Body Dies with Minimum Time and Cost After decades in tool engineering, I’ve learned that reducing die lead time comes from eliminating unpredictability across the classic workflow Design, Simulation, Machining, Assembly, and Tryout. When these stages act as a continuous process rather than isolated steps, both time and cost fall naturally. In design, stabilized geometry, controlled radii, and simplified addendum build the foundation for predictable forming. Excessive beads and over-correction might seem safe, but they usually turn into machining hours and extended tryout loops. In simulation, accuracy depends on disciplined inputs material curves, friction, binder pressure. A closed-loop cycle, where compensation updates flow directly into CAD and NC programming, prevents fragmentation and brings the die closer to its real forming behavior before steel is cut. During machining, multi-stage strategies and CAD-driven toolpaths tighten accuracy and cut rework. When the compensated model drives NC directly, machining becomes execution rather than interpretation. In assembly, modular interfaces standardized shoes, pillars, and pockets—reduce adjustment time and make the die’s mechanical behavior more predictable in spotting. Finally, tryout confirms the truth of every upstream decision. Press dynamics and material variability still require refinement, but when the digital preparation is coherent, tryout becomes calibration rather than rescue. Real reductions in time and cost come not from shortcuts, but from continuity when design, simulation, machining, assembly, and tryout reinforce one another with technical discipline and practical insight.

We're prepping for a client engagement in January that centers on standard work: building an appetite for it and helping them build the capabilities to create and use standard work as regularly as breathing oxygen. The conversations in the prep calls have triggered me to share this snippet from our Standard Work course (taught by Mike Osterling.) Standard work takes many forms (step-by-step work instructions, checklists, instructional posters on a wall, visuals on equipment, laminated "cheat sheets" . . . you name it. And it's designed to meet the specific needs of the people who do the work. It's written in their language (not an engineer's). The content is what THEY need (not what training teams, consultants, or leaders believe they need). And it's highly visual. Clear standards are vital: both the standards that must be met in performing the work (in-process quality) and the standards that the output needs to meet. Without clear standards, meeting quality goals is an elusive little beast. Context and contrast are also vital. How should the work produced look when applied in a larger context (e.g., a label applied to a product, a graphic being inserted into an annual report, etc.)? Images of what both acceptable and unacceptable look like are especially helpful. (Do this, don't do that.) It's stunning how many organizations operate without documented standard work and expect to perform at top levels. The more common result is chaos, firefighting, and burnout. For the record: ISO documentation is not the type of standard work we're talking about. The same is true with most old-school standard operating procedures (SOPs). Only in rare cases does documentation that's more than 50% words qualify as standard work. Well-produced standard work eases a new hire's entry into an organization and accelerates the process of building their proficiency. With all of these benefits, why oh why don't more organizations embrace this fundamental need? For those who think the work has too much variation in it to be standardized, think again. Or that standardization robs creatives and knowledge workers of the artistic license they need. We've never met a process that couldn't be and didn't benefit from being standardized. And that's true even in environments with extremely high variation.

If your internal processes aren’t clearly defined, custom software won’t fix the chaos - it will just automate the confusion. Companies know things aren’t running efficiently, but when dig deeper, here's what is happening: – Same processes vary from team to team – The same task is performed five different ways depending on who’s doing it – There’s no clear agreement on what “efficient” actually looks like In this environment, building custom software doesn’t solve the problem - it just locks in broken processes and makes future changes even harder. So what’s the solution? Standardize first. Automate second. Here’s a simple 3-step framework to help you prepare for custom software the right way: Step 1: Map Your Current Workflows Don’t aim for perfection, aim for visibility. Start by documenting/drawing how work is actually done today, even if it’s messy. This will reveal inconsistencies, redundancies, and gaps you might not even realize exist. Step 2: Identify the Inefficiencies Where are things slowing down? Look for repetitive manual tasks, excessive handoffs, duplicated data entry, and areas where spreadsheets are being used to “patch” broken systems. These are the bottlenecks that custom software should eventually solve. Step 3: Define the Ideal Future State Clarify what the standard process should look like moving forward. This doesn’t mean over-engineering every workflow. It means aligning teams around a clear, repeatable way of doing things. Once that’s in place, software can scale and support it. _____ Even though we build custom solutions, the truth is, custom software isn’t a magic fix. It’s a powerful tool to scale what’s already working but it can’t design your processes for you. If your team is struggling to stay aligned and operational headaches keep popping up, focus on process clarity first. Then invest in technology that will take your efficiency to the next level. #enterprisedevelopment #construction #processautomation

𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 - 𝗶𝘁'𝘀 𝗮 𝗴𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. Years ago, I walked the floor of a facility where each shift had its own way of doing things. Some workers swore by their methods, while others struggled with inefficiencies. The result? → Inconsistent quality → Constant rework → Frustrated employees One operator summed it up: “I never know what I’m walking into when I start my shift.” 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻: Without standard work, teams operate in chaos: → Workflows vary between shifts, causing delays. → Quality fluctuates because processes aren’t repeatable. → Employees feel disengaged without clear expectations. → Continuous improvement stalls because there’s no baseline. The reality? If everyone does things their own way, efficiency and quality suffer. 𝗖𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲: Why does this happen? → Lack of documented best practices. → Resistance to change - "We've always done it this way." → Leaders not reinforcing the importance of standard work. → No system for capturing and improving processes. But here’s the truth: Standard work doesn’t kill creativity - it enables it by providing a solid foundation for innovation. 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲: How do you implement standard work effectively? → Involve the team – Employees should help define best practices. → Make it visual – Use job breakdown sheets, checklists, and SOPs. → Reinforce daily – Leaders must hold the line and celebrate adherence. → Continuously improve – Standard work is a living document, not a rigid rulebook. 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀: → Higher Quality – A standardized process reduces defects and rework. → Improved Efficiency – Less wasted motion, time, and effort. → Stronger Engagement – Employees feel ownership when they co-create standards. → Sustainable Growth – Scaling operations becomes seamless. "Consistency in process leads to excellence in results. The best teams don’t just work hard - they work smart, together." 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺? Have you seen resistance or success in implementing it? Let’s discuss. 𝗪𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲, 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗳𝘂𝗹, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗮𝘆! - Chris Clevenger #LeadershipDevelopment #ContinuousImprovement #LeanManufacturing #StandardWork #OperationalExcellence