Insight: Case Study

First-Time-Right CAD Execution for a Variable Platform Architecture Program

Car image showing the platform architecture

Interiors & Exteriors | Design to Proto Launch | Global EV OEM

Program

Variable Platform Architecture (VPA) — Interiors & Exteriors

Components

Cockpit, door trim, pillar trim, defrost ducts, mid header display, console air vents, liftgate applique, door claddings, sill valance, rocker panel

Team

2 → 4 engineers (scope expanded mid-program)

Tools

3DEXPERIENCE (CATIA), JIRA, Innovia


Context

A global EV OEM and Tier-1 supplier needed CAD execution across a wide interior and exterior component scope on a Variable Platform Architecture program from design through prototype launch. Platform-sharing architecture leaves little room for late-stage design conflict as every component carries simultaneous feasibility, tooling, cost, and timeline constraints.

Challenge

  • Multiple components in the initial CAD data were not feasible for injection moulding or mass production — insufficient draft angles, parting line conflicts on Class-A surfaces, and wall thickness issues flagging warpage risk
  • Clip tower geometry on pillar trim lacked undercut relief, which was functional in CAD, but not mouldable without a secondary side action that hadn't been tooled in
  • If these conflicts carried forward into supplier PPAP and tooling commitment, cost of change would have jumped by an order of magnitude
  • The proto launch schedule had already absorbed one delay, design freeze was a hard stop, with no cycle time left for revision loops

Approach

Goken treated manufacturability as a design input from the first CAD iteration, not a downstream review step.

  • Manufacturability-first CAD: Draft angle compliance (minimum 1.5° on Class-A, 3° on structural walls), parting surface strategy, wall thickness against resin flow thresholds, and weld line positioning were all evaluated as design constraints at every geometry stage
  • Tolerance-driven assembly design: Clip tower spacing, boss diameter, and locating strategy were designed to tolerance stack-up requirements rather than nominal-only geometry, with gap & flush targets tracked across the full door system assembly
  • Root-cause proto resolution: When a clip engagement issue surfaced during the door trim proto build, Goken traced it to a tolerance stack across three mating parts that hadn't been assessed in the original locating strategy
  • Structured cross-functional execution: Issues tracked through JIRA with owner and target closure date; multiple design alternatives (e.g., two parting surface strategies for the liftgate applique) presented with tooling cost and lead time trade-offs at each decision point

Results

Area

Before Goken

After Goken

Part Feasibility

Multiple components with draft/tooling conflicts

All components released to full manufacturing feasibility

Proto Quality

Risk of non-representative proto parts

Production-intent parts; improved assembly fit & finish

Part Cost

Elevated due to part count & complexity

Reduced via geometric integration & assembly simplification

CAD Release Quality

Repetitive rework cycles, feasibility gaps at review

Fewer supplier-stage revision loops

Engineering Governance

Reactive issue resolution

Structured issue ownership and cross-functional closure

Schedule

Delayed proto launch risk

Proto delivery met within hard timeline


Why Goken

  • Goken builds tooling feasibility into the CAD model itself — draft angle, parting strategy, and wall thickness are design constraints from iteration one, not a checklist applied later
  • When problems do surface at proto, root cause comes first, the clip engagement issue was traced to a three-part tolerance stack, not patched at the symptom level
  • A 2-engineer team scaled to 4 mid-programs without losing structure, issue tracking, release prioritization, and supplier coordination held up under expanded scope
  • The driver of success was Goken's standard delivery framework across OEM, Tier-1, and EV platform programs: no feasibility problem survives into proto, regardless of team size

If your platform program is carrying manufacturability risk into proto, or your design freeze has no room left for revision loops, talk to Goken Engineering team


Don't Miss New Insights

Fuel your inbox with innovation — sign up for Goken updates.

← Back to Insights