Untangling the Timeline: Challenges and Opportunities in Supporting Version Control in Modern Computer-Aided Design

TL;DR

This study analyzes user-reported challenges of version control in modern CAD by synthesizing 424 threads across seven forums, with 170 threads focused on VCS. It identifies four cross-cutting challenges—management, continuity, scope, and distribution—that shape how CAD teams coordinate design evolution. Through qualitative analysis, the paper articulates three design opportunities: better articulation of design histories, facilitation of cross-boundary collaboration, and infrastructural reflexivity that allows user-driven adaptation. The findings provide actionable guidance for CAD vendors and researchers to rethink VCS as a robust information infrastructure that supports distributed, iterative, and boundary-spanning design work. Together, these insights advance CAD version control beyond software analogies toward a user-centered, ecosystem-aware design paradigm.

Abstract

Version control is critical in mechanical computer-aided design (CAD) to enable traceability, manage product variation, and support collaboration. Yet, its implementation in modern CAD software as an essential information infrastructure for product development remains plagued by issues due to the complexity and interdependence of design data. This paper presents a systematic review of user-reported challenges with version control in modern CAD tools. Analyzing 170 online forum threads, we identify recurring socio-technical issues that span the management, continuity, scope, and distribution of versions. Our findings inform a broader reflection on how version control should be designed and improved for CAD and motivate opportunities for tools and mechanisms that better support articulation work, facilitate cross-boundary collaboration, and operate with infrastructural reflexivity. This study offers actionable insights for CAD software providers and highlights opportunities for researchers to rethink version control.

Figures (7)

• Figure 1: Overview of the research methodology. (1) A list of keywords was first defined in Section \ref{['sec:data_collection']} to search for posts and discussions from seven forums. (2) A total of 424 threads from the forum search are mined with a self-developed website scraper. (3) A subset of 100 threads was first randomly selected for open coding with the method described in Section \ref{['sec:data_analysis']}, and a coding scheme was developed. (4) The established codebook was then used to qualitatively code the remaining 324 threads.
• Figure 2: Characteristics of the dataset of 170 relevant forum threads included in our analysis. (a) Temporal distribution of forum threads from April 2005 to July 2024. (b) Distribution of comment counts per forum thread. On average, each thread contains 11.98 comments.
• Figure 3: Frequency of challenges with using version control in CAD reported in the relevant forum threads ($n=$170), where one or more challenges were identified in each thread. Challenges are grouped into four categories: management, continuity, scope, and distribution of version control in CAD.
• Figure 4: Display of version history of a file in the three studied CAD software. (a) SolidWorks automatically generates versioning event descriptions and incremented version numbers for every PDM action (e.g., check-in, check-out, revision), with the option for users to enter detailed descriptions (adapted from Ref. lohmann_can_2018). (b) Autodesk Fusion creates an automatically incremented version number for every file version saved and synced to the cloud. Unless the user otherwise provides a short description, only the timestamp is available to label the created versions. Users can also create milestones (based on the current version) with custom names and detailed descriptions, displayed with a flag sign. (c) Onshape cascades all changes to the file under every user-created version, and branches are shown with additional visualization (i.e., a yellow branching path from the main blue branch). All three platforms display the user-specified version description with limited space in the history view, where additional clicks are required to open a separate dialogue window for a specific version to access the detailed documentation. All screenshots of software interfaces are presented for comparison purposes only.
• Figure 5: User interface for comparing two versions of a CAD model in the three studied CAD software and Thangs. (a) Onshape presents two model versions with one version overlaid on top of another, where the geometric difference is highlighted in red. All modified modelling commands are listed in the side panel, where selecting each command presents all the modified command parameters, and the geometries that are modified by the selected command are highlighted in yellow. (b) SolidWorks presents two versions of the model side by side, where changes of existing geometries are highlighted in yellow, and additions and deletions of geometries are highlighted in red. Modelling commands that were modified are also listed in the side panel, where selecting each command presents all the modified command parameters (adapted from Ref. goengineer_comparing_2017). (c) Thangs presents an overlaid view of two uploaded model versions, with geometric difference highlighted in purple (adapted from Ref. thangs_3d_thangs_2022). (d) Autodesk Fusion presents only one version of the model that is under comparison with a list of modelling commands that are modified. However, selecting each listed modelling command only highlights the geometries that are modified by the selected command, but not the modified parameters. Modelling command parameters are not compared, even if they are accessible from the uploaded file format. All screenshots of software interfaces are presented for comparison purposes only.