Autodesk workflow guidance
Inventor & Vault automation: iLogic, add-ins or job handlers?
Use iLogic for repeatable rules close to an Inventor model, an add-in for an operator-facing Inventor tool, and a Vault job handler for supported queued processing. Choose an integration service when the problem crosses business systems. Start with the smallest approach that can be tested and supported.
What belongs in iLogic?
Inventor iLogic supports rules in part, assembly and drawing documents, with access to parameters and Inventor API functions. It can suit configuration rules, property updates and repeatable document checks. Our recommendation: begin with a copied representative model and one explicit rule. Record who maintains it and how it is distributed before extending it across a library.
When is an Inventor add-in a better fit?
Consider an add-in when people need a repeatable command, a purpose-built interface or shared application behavior. Inventor exposes an add-in model and API access through its application object. Our recommendation: separate the business rule from the interface, test the rule independently, and package the tool for the exact Inventor version your team uses. A larger codebase is justified by a clearer operating experience, not by complexity alone.
What belongs in a Vault job handler?
Vault's Job Processor loads configured job handlers and checks whether they can process supported job types. This is a different execution context from a command someone runs in Inventor. Our recommendation: use a queued job only after verifying the installed edition, SDK, permissions and required applications. Define the source file version, output location, retry behavior and failure owner. A repeated job should not silently publish a second conflicting result.
When does the problem need an integration service?
A request that connects an order, engineering record and downstream report needs explicit ownership of identifiers and data. Our recommended first step is a read-only mapping: which system owns each field, when it changes, and how mismatches are reviewed. Keep CAD document operations in the appropriate supported environment. Do not make an unattended service responsible for an interactive application's assumptions without testing that execution model.
A practical first automation slice
For a fictional drawing-release workflow, choose one approved sample assembly and produce one review package. Compare document identifiers, revisions, required properties and expected outputs against a written checklist. Exercise missing properties, a locked file, an unavailable dependency and a retry. Measure manual review time before and after. This is an evaluation example, not a customer result or a promised saving.
What should a discovery engagement return?
A useful discovery scope identifies the workflow owner, current application versions, source of truth, recurring failure, chosen automation approach and one acceptance test. The deliverable is a first-slice plan with exclusions, deployment constraints and rollback steps. Implementation and access require separate agreement. CAD Guardian reviews future availability and conflicts before accepting work.
Turn the question into a first useful step.
Describe the application, repeated task and result you need. We review future availability, fit and conflicts before discussing a discovery scope. No private files are needed for the first inquiry.
Discuss an Autodesk workflow →Capabilities · Experience and evidence · Software System Diagnostic