Knowledge graphs connect engineering entities, rules, and evidence into a computable network—so design teams can accelerate impact analysis, traceability, reuse, and decisions.
Engineering teams already have data. What they often lack is a reliable way to connect it into product logic—so decisions remain fast and defensible as designs change, variants multiply, and verification pressure increases.
A component does not live in one place. Its definition, interfaces, constraints, change history, requirements coverage, and verification evidence are distributed across tools and artifacts. When those links are implicit or inconsistent, engineers spend time reconstructing dependencies instead of advancing the design.
A knowledge graph addresses this by representing product knowledge as a connected model of engineering entities and explicit relationships. The value is straightforward: once dependencies and applicability are explicit, engineering questions become easier to answer consistently.
A knowledge graph is a product knowledge model built around:
The point is not visualization. The point is that product knowledge becomes structured enough to reason over—so teams can trace, check, and assess impact without manual stitching.
Most change risk comes from hidden dependencies. A knowledge graph makes dependencies explicit, so impact analysis is based on the actual connection structure—what is linked, what depends on what, and what must be reviewed as a consequence.
Outcome: fewer missed impacts, faster engineering reviews, fewer late surprises.
Traceability breaks when it’s treated as static documentation. In a knowledge graph, traceability is stored as explicit links, so engineers can consistently answer:
Outcome: faster reviews, stronger compliance posture, less time rebuilding “proof packs.”
Engineering organizations rely on rules—interface completeness, required attributes at release, applicability constraints, verification coverage expectations. When product knowledge is connected and structured, those checks can be run consistently across a defined scope (subsystem, baseline, variant set), instead of varying by reviewer and time pressure.
Outcome: more consistent quality gates, fewer subjective reviews.
When relationships are explicit, outputs naturally come out structured:
Outcome: reports and review material that are faster to build and easier to trust.
Engineers don’t adopt knowledge graphs for the concept—they adopt them to make engineering logic executable on top of connected product knowledge: dependencies, applicability, and evidence that can be checked and reported consistently.
This is where Dessia fits. Dessia leverages a graph approach to support engineering workflows that depend on explicit relationships—so teams can run consistent checks and generate decision-ready outputs, instead of manually reconstructing context across tools.
In practical terms, this means:
The knowledge graph is the structure. Dessia is an example of how that structure is used to operationalize consistent engineering logic and reporting.
Published on
29.12.2025
These articles may be of interest to you
Engineering intelligence
2D design verification is challenging not because drawings are missing, but because consistency across drawings, BOMs, grids, and metadata is hard to maintain at scale. This article explains why manual checks break down—and how automation fixes it.
9 min reading
Engineering intelligence
Reuse doesn’t scale when it’s just “find a similar part.” It scales when decisions become standardized and cost-controlled. Dessia connects 3D design heritage to trusted costing references so teams can compare options, converge faster, and keep variants aligned across the lifecycle.
6 min reading
Engineering intelligence
Knowledge graphs connect engineering entities, rules, and evidence into a computable network—so design teams can accelerate impact analysis, traceability, reuse, and decisions.
5 min reading