It's doable, I think, if behind your 3D model goes through a CAD/CAM software to be machined.
If it's not the case (so your part is made "traditionally") I don't really believe in it, because how will your manufacturing subcontractor respect the tolerances...
I already do this with a supplier who has an SW license. On the other hand, I send him the 3D with the dimensions tolerated in the 3D, whereas before I only did it on the plan. For me it was a necessity because my mechanical MeP are rated by an electronics technician (yes I learned the mecha on the job)
Only advantages because if my parts are not "feasible", my supplier sends them back to me corrected (after consultation).=> 0% loss
We have a customer who only sends us 3D drawings with dimensions or tolerances directly on the model (under Catia in this case) instead of the plans.
In practice, it is often necessary to redo pseudo plans because some operations cannot be carried out directly from 3D. This is even more true for the traceability of controls.
Another disadvantage is that configuration management is more difficult (monitoring of evolutions, last applicable index, etc.).
Depending on the project, the time saved in the design office will not necessarily have a significant impact on the overall price and deadline.
This may be a problem that can be solved with the sw2014 version and its history.
My remark is perhaps a little too simplistic due to the fact that I am the only master on board and have no repercussions on colleagues. So I manage my clues by simply saving the 3D with my extra clue.
@ Gerald: Indeed there are several solutions to keep a design history. But in this case, we are recipients and therefore cannot act on the source files...
What I wanted to point out is that this way of doing things requires adapting the working method, both on the customer and supplier side. On the other hand, saying that you no longer make plans does not mean that you can do without them completely. It is more a partial transfer of this activity.