From the category archives:

Technologies

eco-mco-ebom-mbom

MBOM (Manufacturing BOM) is a tough problem. Initially, you might think about it as an easy problem. Especially, since companies are managing MBOMs in MRP/ERP systems for a while. However, I think, the time when MBOM was simply originated in MRP system to fulfill demand planning and production orders are gone. And it brings lot of questions and, raise attention from software vendors and implementers. PLM vendors are in the first line of companies demanding the change in the way MBOM is handled.

MBOM is really hard if you want to keep it in sync with rest of product data in engineering and manufacturing. It starts from the moment of time, you understand that your engineering BOM and manufacturing BOM are not the same thing. I touched it earlier in my post – 4 reasons why is hard to deliver MBOM in PLM. The initial creation of MBOM can be technically straightforward. It mostly end up by adding date effectivity element into BOM structure. Within time it gets complicated. And one of the main reasons is synchronization of data. It goes mostly around management of engineering change.

MBOM is a central place to capture the impact of engineering changes and to insure changes are managed correctly and reflected into manufacturing process with relevant dates and references to engineering data (EBOM). The priority of changes are not equal. Organization must handle these priorities and it can result in significant cost differences. Fundamentally you can think about mandatory changes and optional changes. The first one is the change organization will be implementing at any cost. It usually result of failures and regulatory changes. The second one is more interesting. This is where all new development, innovation, design improvements, cost reduction and other things are coming. This is a place where play with effectivity date can be tricky and complex. The sequence of steps are as following:

1- Engineering release or ECO transmit the data about changes in EBOM, which serve as a source of change and provides all required engineering information

2- Manufacturing should introduce these changes into planning process. Timing is important and this process is formal. Some of companies connect it to so called MCO process.

3- All dependencies must be discovered and reflected in changes of MBOM and manufacturing planning.

The last step brings a significant complexity. Engineering information (as it comes from EBOM) often comes incomplete and doesn’t contain all data that must be reflected in a change. There are multiple reasons to that, but in general, engineering view of a product is different from manufacturing one. One of the most typical examples is related to part interchangeability. But, I can see many others too. To synchronize changes between EBOM and MBOM is very complex. However, this complexity and challenges can turn MBOM into next cool thing in PLM.

What is my conclusion? EBOM to MBOM synchronization is a complex process that requires significant data manipulation, data discovery and careful operation. It cannot be automated and it requires a lot of consideration from engineering and manufacturing people. The complexity of modern product and manufacturing processes are introducing the new level of challenges in the way to manage EBOM and MBOM. This sync is critical and companies are demanding tools that can help them to handle it in the right way. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Share

0 comments

nike-custom-shoe

Data ownership is an interesting topic. Our life is getting more digital every day and we are asking many interesting questions about who owns data about us. Who owns the data about our Facebook profiles, who owns social media data we created and many others. While still there are some gaps in understanding who owns the data about our digital life, when it comes to business use cases, the things are also very complex. Ownership of information is one of the most fundamental things in enterprise business. Engineering and Manufacturing companies are living it every day. If you deal with enterprise data, you are probably familiar with the term – master data. Usually it leads to many discussions in organization. Who owns the master data about design, bill of material, item, etc.

These are questions that need to be answer to allow to enterprise system to functioning properly. In one of my old posts I shared my view on Ugly truth about PLM-ERP monkey volleyball. Until now, the demarcation line of engineering vs. manufacturing was somewhat acceptable in most of the situations. I tried to capture this status in my Thoughts about BOM ownership article. However, things are going to change.

PLM and ERP are getting into new round of debates about ownership of data. It comes as a question raised in engineering.com blog – “PLM should take over ownership of the manufacturing BOM too”, says Siemens PLM’s CEO, Chuck Grindstaff. Navigate to this link to read the article. Management of EBOM and MBOM as well as many other BOMs is a very complex problem that cannot be solved in an easy way. One of the key problems is the need to synchronize information between BOMs. However, synchronize is probably a wrong word. These BOMs are not identical and requires application of very tricky logic to keep them in sync. To solve it is a big deal for many companies and they will demand it from vendors. Therefore, I’m very confident that, after all, PLM vendors fight over BOM will require to solve data synchronization problems.

At the same time, manufacturing is changing. One of the most visible trends in manufacturing is mass customization. We are moving from mass production methods toward total customization. The demand for configuration is growing and customers are requiring sophistication of engineering to order manufacturing processes applied to a broader range of products and services. Bill of materials is a center piece of these processes. What was done before by configuring a small set of preconfigured modules won’t work in a new reality of manufacturing and mass customization.

My attention was caught by a set of articles about Mass customization by Kalipso. One of them was published on Innovation Excellence blog – Modern Mass Customization – Rule 3: Honor the Order, Abandon the BOM. These articles are worth reading. Here is my favorite passage that outlines a special role of BOM in mass customization manufacturing process:

The relevance of the BOM greatly diminishes as a company transitions to a ‘to-order’ product offering. For mass customizers, a Bill of Materials, or more appropriately, a Bill of Modules, is a transient artifact. It is entirely possible that a given BOM may only be built a single time, and for a single order. Mass customizers should shift their perspective of the BOM from the identity of the product, to the technical details of the order. The identity of the product then becomes the governing logic that permits a range of configuration possibilities.

As the purpose of the BOM changes, so changes the purpose of PLM and the systems that support it. Rather than originating in PLM, BOM details originate with the order itself, ideally using a customer-facing product configuration system. As long as the order and corresponding BOM are compatible with the business rules that govern configurations, these details can be passed on directly to production systems for manufacturing (ERP, MRP, MES) without making a pit stop at PLM. PLM thus transitions from a tool for managing the lifecycle of a BOM, to a tool for managing the lifecycle of modular components that are used by the configurator.

I’m not sure about “abandoning the BOM”. However, article made me think about some elements of BOM management that are going to change. One of them is granularity of BOM. What I can see is the overall transition of BOM management into more granular process of configured components. In order to do so, PLM and ERP will have to re-think the way ownership and synchronization is happening. The question of “ownership” of granular product definition is getting less relevant. To manage smooth synchronization process is much more important.

What is my conclusion? Modern manufacturing trends are going to transform enterprise systems as we know them. Mass customization is one of them. PLM and ERP are two main systems that involved into process of engineering and manufacturing. To support mass customization product engineering and manufacturing these systems will have to interplay in a completely different way. In my view, the demand to support mass customization and other complex manufacturing processes is leading PLM vendors to want MBOM badly. However, here is change that can come as a result of rethinking of BOM management. In the future, Bill of Materials should not be owned, but intertwined and shared between PLM and ERP. Ownership of data will become less relevant. The new reality of data sharing and collaboration is coming. Daydreaming? Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Share

4 comments

Thoughts about BOM ownership

by Oleg on November 20, 2014 · 0 comments

data-shared-instead-of-plm-erp

The Engineering.com publication about PLM taking ownership of MBOM ignited few discussions online about Bill of Materials, BOM Management and co-existence of multiple enterprise systems. My first thought was that all of them will have to rethink the way BOM is synchronized between systems. This is not a new problem. Any implementation of enterprise PLM is facing this challenge. Pumping BOM between PLM, ERP and other systems is costly and complex process. But the reality – this is the only practical way to do so.

I went back in my old writing to find some recommendation how to make it easier. My old blog post five years ago, speaks about Seven Rules Towards Single Bill of Materials. To me, all recommendations are still very relevant. Following them can make your “BOM synchronization” problem less painful. Almost at the same time, Jim Brown of Tech-Clarity also shared his thoughts about single BOM: Single Bill of Material – Holy Grail or Pipe Dream? I liked Jim’s thought about Single BOM vs. Associated BOM. Here is a passage I liked:

Companies have spent a lot of time and effort making logical connections between different BOMs, and developing tools to help develop and synchronize different BOMs. For example, PLM, MPM, and Digital Manufacturing software helps companies translate an engineering BOM into a manufacturing BOM and then further into a BOP. In fact, they have gone further upstream to match conceptual BOMs and requirement structures downstream to BOMs. Maybe you would call these “workarounds” to the real answer of a single BOM. But I would propose a different view based on history and my observations. Perhaps engineers have done what we do best – addressed the problem in the most practical way as opposed to the most elegant way to solve a problem.

At the same time, single BOM or Associated BOM is hard. It requires many points of synchronization between departments and processes. Therefore, I still keep my opinion that most of companies today are still Not Ready for Single Bill of Materials.

So, what to do? How to make an improvement? Do you think fight for MBOM as it mentioned in Engineering.com article is the only way? I tried to visualize the picture of different BOMs and present it together with how PLM and ERP ownership is distributed. Take a look on the picture below.

PLM-ERP-BOM-Ownership

There are paces where each systems claims their benefits. At the same time, there are places where ownership of bill of materials and related product information can be different. The touch point is manufacturing BOM. I still believe, this is the next cool thing in PLM – how to manage MBOM.

What is my conclusion? I think both ERP and PLM vendors need to take a step back. Data ownership was a fundamental part of any enterprise business strategy for the last 20 years. Maybe, this is a time to change data ownership approach? Maybe it is a time to think about better data synchronization and transparency. How we can help people to collaborate alongside the product development process from design to management and to support and services? Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

photo credit: mrxstitch via photopin cc

Share

0 comments

DIY Cloud PLM using Aras Innovator

November 14, 2014

I’m continue to explore the topic of cloud PLM options. My last blog post about it covered delivery options for cloud PLM. It raised few interesting discussions showing that vendors are closely following up any opportunity to leverage a combination of existing PLM platforms and cloud infrastructure. IaaS is a technical buzzword behind this option. […]

Share
Read the full article →

How PLM can leverage Azure analytics?

November 13, 2014

Analytics is a hot word these days. You can hear it everywhere. It sounds and feels sweet and smart. You can think about crunching data and getting results. It sounds very Googley? Indeed, Google is spending lot of money making Google cloud platform more affordable. Google provides some interesting online services that can be used […]

Share
Read the full article →

PLM vendors’ fight over BOM will require to solve data synchronization problems

November 10, 2014

Engineering.com article by Verdi Ogewell earlier today is introducing a next step of PLM vs. ERP battle for ownership of manufacturing BOM. Navigate to the following link to read a very provoking interview with Siemens PLM CEO Chuck Grinstaff who says – “PLM should take over ownership of the manufacturing BOM too“. I’ve been writing about […]

Share
Read the full article →

The definition of cloud PLM

November 7, 2014

PLM industry is moving towards broader adoption of cloud solutions. More people these days are asking how to implement cloud. It becomes more and more clear that devil is in details and cloud environment can be very different. It comes in variety of aspects related to infrastructure, support of browsers, the need to have elements […]

Share
Read the full article →

Cloud PDM hack with Google Drive and other tools

November 6, 2014

Earlier this week I talked about future of ubiquitous CAD cloud drives. My hunch CAD and other engineering software companies will be trying to use new cloud technologies to improve the way people collaborate on design. The question what tool to use for CAD file collaboration is not simple. I discussed it last year – […]

Share
Read the full article →

The path towards ubiquitous CAD cloud drive

November 4, 2014

I’ve been talking about future of cloud file system and CAD data trajectories the other day on my blog. It goes back and connected to multiple discussions about future of file system. What will be future of file systems and file paradigm. Can we announce the death of file system? So, file system is dead, […]

Share
Read the full article →

PLM collaboration – your inbox is a to-do list

November 3, 2014

Collaboration is fascinating place. So many things were done to improve collaboration for the last decade, but it still remains a place many people are trying to improve. Technology around us is one of the reason companies are keeping to focus on collaboration. What was efficient and new 10 years ago, is completely obsolete now. […]

Share
Read the full article →