Toward CIM: besides a common database, which additional prerequisite most directly enables integrating CAD and CAM into full Computer-Integrated Manufacturing (CIM)?

Introduction / Context:
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing (CIM) unifies design (CAD), planning, and production (CAM) so that geometry, tolerances, and process data flow without re-entry. A shared data foundation is essential to prevent translation errors and delays.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The prompt already assumes a common database exists.
• The remaining critical barrier is consistent geometry representation across departments.
• We seek the prerequisite that most directly removes duplicate modeling and conversions.

Concept / Approach:
A common 3-D part description (e.g., shared solid/feature model) lets downstream CAM, CAPP, and inspection derive toolpaths, fixtures, and checks from the same authoritative geometry. This eliminates re-modeling and reduces version drift, enabling true digital thread continuity from design to machining and quality.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify the chokepoint: geometry translation between CAD and CAM.2) Ensure one canonical 3-D part model usable by all functions.3) Conclude that a shared 3-D description is the key complement to a common database.

Verification / Alternative check:
Standards such as STEP emphasize neutral, rich product models for enterprise-wide exchange, underscoring the importance of consistent part representation.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
A: Vague; does not ensure interoperability. C/D: Useful but not foundational for data integration. E: Autonomy in formats undermines integration and creates silos.

Common Pitfalls:
Relying on ad-hoc file conversions (e.g., DXF/IGES) that lose features and PMI; use a unified model instead.

Final Answer:
A common 3-D part description system shared across functions.