Theegarten Use Cases¶

Status: Customer evidence plus pilot-specific wiki synthesis Validation status: Theegarten has richer account evidence than most pivot accounts, including Marcel Eggert requirements, LOI context, and a dedicated Theegarten pilot wiki. The ERP/CAD metadata pain is still a customer-mentioned signal that needs a new-part walkthrough before being treated as validated.

This page turns Theegarten-Pactec and Marcel-related material into account-specific use cases. It combines two related directions:

the current pilot-facing release check around SOLIDWORKS, EPLAN, BOMs, and CIM Database
the Engineering Master Data Assistant signal around ERP/CAD metadata and Stammdatenpflege

Evidence Boundary¶

Evidence	Source	How to treat it
Theegarten pilot prep centers on a release check for drawing + BOM package before CIM Database release	Theegarten wiki	account-specific pilot evidence
Must-haves include controlled/local AI, know-how protection, CIM Database fit, drawings/BOMs, traceability, and engineer approval	Theegarten wiki	account-specific pilot evidence
Tools: SOLIDWORKS mechanical, EPLAN electrical, CIM Database as PLM system of record	Theegarten wiki	account-specific pilot evidence
Marcel's materials emphasize high data quality, design-error prevention, traceable processes, change management, machinery regulation, naming/documentation standardization, and drawings/BOMs	Theegarten wiki	account-specific pilot evidence
The ERP/CAD metadata signal points to manual master-data maintenance across CAD, BOM, PLM, and ERP	`bauerkompressorsearch.md` + pivot synthesis	customer-mentioned / needs confirmation
Network/GTM research lists Theegarten as packaging machinery, roughly 400 employees, with SolidWorks, TopSolid, ProfiCAM, WariCam, Bysoft, and active PLM initiative signals	Network target-company wiki	account context, not direct pain validation

Priority Backlog¶

Priority	Use case	Owner signal	Why first
P0	T-01 SOLIDWORKS + BOM Release Check Before CIM Release	Marcel / Theegarten wiki	current pilot-facing story
P0	T-02 CIM Database Findings Report	Marcel / Theegarten wiki	makes RapidDraft fit workflow instead of becoming a side tool
P0	T-03 Engineering Master Data Assistant	Marcel metadata signal	potentially boring and budget-adjacent; needs confirmation
P1	T-04 EPLAN / Mechanical Cross-Check	Theegarten wiki	specific cross-discipline packaging-machine risk
P1	T-05 Change Package Completeness Assistant	Theegarten wiki	follows naturally after release check
P1	T-06 Naming, Terminology, And Component Standardization	Theegarten wiki	important, but later than drawing/BOM checks
P2	T-07 Supplier Quality Forms And EMPB Lineage	Theegarten wiki	useful phase 2, not first demo

T-01 SOLIDWORKS + BOM Release Check Before CIM Release¶

Persona: Mechanical engineer, engineering lead, or PLM/release owner preparing a module for release.

Trigger: A SOLIDWORKS drawing and BOM package is ready to move through CIM Database release workflow.

Current failure mode: Release quality depends on manual review. Drawing, BOM, metadata, EPLAN references, and package completeness can drift, and engineers will reject black-box or autonomous release tools.

Required inputs to request from Theegarten:

one module family for a real pilot
SOLIDWORKS drawing PDF or neutral export
BOM export from SOLIDWORKS/CIM
CIM Database metadata: part number, revision, lifecycle state, project/module
drawing/BOM release checklist
examples of common release defects or late findings

RapidDraft behavior:

Check	Concrete behavior	Example finding
Drawing completeness	Verify required title block, dimensions, notes, material, revision, and interface fields	"Required material field missing on released drawing."
Drawing vs BOM	Compare part number, quantity, revision, material, and description	"Drawing Rev C but BOM line still references Rev B."
Package inventory	Check required files and linked documents before release	"STEP or supplier PDF missing from release package."
Traceable findings	Link every finding to sheet, zone, BOM line, or metadata field	"Finding source: Sheet 2, zone B4, BOM line 17."
Human approval	Produce a review report; engineer decides release action	"Review report attached; no automatic status change."

Output: Release-readiness findings report with severity, source link, rule/check name, and suggested action.

MVP slice: Read-only review of one module family using exported files and CIM metadata. Write back only a linked findings report after integration is confirmed.

T-02 CIM Database Findings Report¶

Persona: PLM owner, engineering lead, IT/security reviewer, or release coordinator.

Trigger: RapidDraft completes a release check and needs to place the result where Theegarten already works.

Current failure mode: A separate AI website would break trust and process. CIM Database must remain the system of record for objects, workflows, revisions, and audit trail.

Required inputs:

CIM Database deployment mode: on-prem or cloud
available CONTACT OpenAPI list for Theegarten's installation
auth method: OAuth, API token, or SSO
how released PDFs/STEP/BOM metadata are downloaded
where review reports should be attached

RapidDraft behavior:

trigger on a workflow state such as "ready for release review"
read released drawings, BOM metadata, and part information
generate findings with stable IDs and evidence pointers
write back a linked report document, not silent workflow changes
leave status transitions and release approval inside CIM Database

Output: CIM-linked review report with finding ID, severity, source pointer, timestamp, reviewer, and engineer action.

MVP slice: Pilot with export/import or attached PDF/CSV report if API mapping is not ready. Do not promise full workflow automation before CONTACT/IT confirms the tenant.

T-03 Engineering Master Data Assistant¶

Evidence note: This is a strong Theegarten/Marcel-adjacent signal, but it still needs direct workflow confirmation.

Persona: ERP/master-data owner, PLM owner, design engineer, or engineering operations person responsible for item creation.

Trigger: A new CAD part, assembly, or purchased component is created and needs ERP/PLM fields before it can be ordered, stocked, costed, manufactured, or released.

Current failure mode: CAD has geometry, material, drawing, weight, and assembly context. ERP and PLM require many additional fields. People manually copy values from similar parts, causing blanks, inconsistent naming, wrong classification, and downstream cleanup.

Required inputs:

one new-part creation walkthrough
mandatory ERP/material-master fields
CAD/PDM/PLM fields available at creation time
similar historical part records
examples of fields copied manually today
who enters the data and how long it takes

RapidDraft behavior:

infer part class, description, keywords, material group, make/buy flag, product family, spare-part flag, procurement category, and supplier hints
show source examples from similar historical parts
flag required fields still missing
keep every suggestion human-approved
learn from accepted/rejected field suggestions

Output: Suggested master-data completion table with confidence, source evidence, and approval controls.

MVP slice: CSV/Excel exports from PLM/ERP and a small set of new-part examples. No ERP writeback in the first proof.

T-04 EPLAN / Mechanical Cross-Check¶

Persona: Mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, or release owner working on module changes that affect sensors, devices, or wiring.

Trigger: A mechanical bracket, guard, sensor mount, or module interface changes and the EPLAN references may need update.

Current failure mode: Mechanical and electrical data can drift. A bracket move or sensor change may be reflected in SOLIDWORKS/BOM but not in EPLAN or the release package.

Required inputs:

EPLAN PDF/export
mechanical drawing/BOM package
tag naming convention
example mechanical change that should trigger electrical review

RapidDraft behavior:

compare device tags and component references across BOM, drawing notes, and EPLAN
flag missing or stale EPLAN references
warn when mechanical changes likely require electrical review
produce a cross-discipline action list

Output: Findings with mechanical source, EPLAN tag/source, and recommended reviewer.

MVP slice: Explicit tag and reference checks only. Do not attempt electrical design validation.

T-05 Change Package Completeness Assistant¶

Persona: Engineering lead or PLM/release coordinator.

Trigger: A module change is prepared for release or change management.

Current failure mode: A package can include the drawing but miss service documentation, commissioning impact, EPLAN update, safety checklist, or assembly/build note.

Required inputs:

change-package template or release checklist
required document types by module/change type
examples of incomplete change packages
PLM workflow states and required attachments

RapidDraft behavior:

classify the change type
check required artifacts are linked
draft a change summary from the reviewed data
flag missing owner approvals or stale document references
attach the report to CIM Database

Output: Change-package completeness checklist and draft release summary.

MVP slice: Use one module family and one checklist. Keep action finalization with the engineer.

T-06 Naming, Terminology, And Component Standardization¶

Persona: Engineering manager, PLM owner, master-data owner, or standards owner.

Trigger: Engineers create or change part names, document titles, component descriptions, or release notes.

Current failure mode: Same or similar parts may be named differently across projects. Old terminology may persist in drawings, BOMs, or documentation.

Required inputs:

naming standard or preferred terminology list
existing part/component history
examples of duplicates or inconsistent names
accepted standard component lists

RapidDraft behavior:

suggest standardized part descriptions
flag terminology drift
detect possible duplicate/near-duplicate components
recommend preferred components when a custom part appears unnecessary

Output: Naming and standardization findings with source examples and accepted alternatives.

MVP slice: Later phase after release check or master-data workflow is confirmed.

Recommended Demo Sequence¶

Lead with T-01 SOLIDWORKS + BOM Release Check Before CIM Release because it matches the existing Theegarten demo story.
Show T-02 CIM Database Findings Report so Theegarten sees RapidDraft fitting their workflow.
Ask a discovery question for T-03 Engineering Master Data Assistant: "Walk me through the last time a new part was created."
Keep EPLAN cross-check as a supporting step in the same release story.
Mention supplier quality forms only as phase 2.

Validation Assets To Ask For¶

one real module family for pilot scope
one anonymized SOLIDWORKS drawing package
one BOM export
one CIM Database metadata export or API sample
one EPLAN export if cross-discipline checks are in scope
one release checklist
one new-part creation walkthrough with ERP/PLM mandatory fields
deployment constraints: local/on-prem/cloud boundary and security requirements

Open Questions¶

Is the first Theegarten paid wedge release check, master-data completion, or both in sequence?
Does Marcel's ERP/CAD metadata concern come from engineering, PLM, ERP/master data, procurement, or quality?
Which CIM Database deployment mode and APIs are available?
Which module family should anchor the pilot?
Are finding texts expected in German, English, or both?
Which finding types would engineers accept as useful rather than noise?

Sources¶

docs_pivot/_sources/usecases-erpdrawing/bauerkompressorsearch.md
docs_pivot/_sources/usecases-erpdrawing/meeting minutes June-July.rtf
docs_theegarten/index.md
docs_theegarten/what-they-need.md
docs_theegarten/use-cases-and-problems.md
docs_theegarten/release-check-demo.md
docs_theegarten/their-tools.md
docs_theegarten/plm-integration.md
docs_theegarten/demo-day.md
docs_theegarten/quality-forms.md
docs_network/03_Companies/Target_Companies.md