Posts tagged as:

BOM

voxel8-12

3D printing is changing the way we can manufacturing products. Which potentially means changes in how companies are going to manage product development processes. While it is still unclear how it may happen, I wonder if 3D printing can also change the way we manage data about product.

Forget about 3D printing as a way to make plastic covers for mobile devices and furniture for dolls. Medium article – 3D Printed Electronics Have Arrived speaks about very interesting innovation in 3D printing – Voxel8 printer capable to produce a complete electronic device as a single piece. Here is a high level explanation about printing process:

The printer uses a modular design to print both circuitry and plastic parts. One printer head extrudes PLA plastic, building the bulk of the object, while another head prints out circuitry using a very conductive ink. As the printing process goes along, the printer automatically pauses (thanks to some nifty software from Autodesk) to allow the designer to insert electrical components like motors and resistors into the print. Once the component is placed, the printer automagically resumes printing where it left off. 

What future scenario you can think about? The following passage is proposing “printing phones in store” as an option:

This printer is important because this is your future. Eventually the price for circuit-printing printers will come down, and we will see electronics shops that print phones in the store, rather than buying them from a 3rd world sweat shop. I expect that within a decade average users may even be able to customize the shape and color of their phone to their liking.

voxel8-3

The story made me think about how a new 3D printing approach can influence the way we are managing data about products. Currently, the design is done separately for electronics and mechanical parts. Think about PCB design, electrical components and plastic body. You have data managed separate in these systems. Then you have to bring all elements of product together to create an engineering and manufacturing bill of materials. The new approach can change some fundamental principles companies are managing data today. It is hard to say how it will work, but my hunch that composed bill of material should be available at much earlier stage. It might influence the integration of design and assembly tools.

What is my conclusion? Changing paradigms. This is probably the easiest way to describe a potential change that devices like Voxel8 can bring. It can change product data management fundamentals by requiring to manage product structure differently. It can potentially change processes between engineering and manufacturing as well. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

A CT scan of a 3D Printed drone (courtesy: Voxel8)

Share

4 comments

PLM and Entire System Common Data Model

by Oleg on January 5, 2015 · 0 comments

complex-system-bom

Products are getting more complex these days. There are multiple reasons for that. Adding of connectivity and software is one of the most visible reasons why it happens. Think about any simple gadget these days, which cost less than 99$ in US. It includes mechanical components, electrical parts and software. In additional to that, products are often functioning together with cloud-based or bluetoooth enabled software. The situation is even more complex when it comes to industrial equipment, transportation and other products.

Last year, I was blogging about the need to combine engineering and software BOM. My hunch, the problem is not solved yet. My attention caught by TEC Technology Evaluation writeup – 9 Innovation and Product Development Software Market Trends and Predictions made by Predrag Jakovljevic. One part of it speaks about the need to develop a holistic system common data model to manage an entire system. Here is passage, which speaks about that:

There is a need for a common data model for managing an entire system, i.e., both hardware and software data from ideation to end of life (EOL). Common repositories and software architectures must enable the reuse of design and components (and intellectual property, if you will). Thus the “innovation platform” has become a big concept for PLM-CAD-MOM players—Dassault Systèmes has the 3DEXPERIENCE Platform, Siemens PLM Software has its Smart Innovation Platform, and Autodesk’s A360, PLM 360, and Fusion 360 products all run on the same data model. Other vendors such as SAP and Oracle are not far behind. I question how many companies will be able to support an all-inclusive PLM to CAD to MES solution. My feeling is that “cloud rings or layers” with improved interoperability will emerge around PLM to reduce upgrade and total cost of ownership (TCO) costs.

The fact vendors are working on new platform can hint future modeling capabilities will help to manage more complex data structures. To create a “composite BOM model” with elements of mechanical, electrical and software parts can be an interesting PLM challenge. PLM vendors have been working on variety of BOM solutions for the last two decades. Product structure is a complex piece of data, which is representing a critical element of PLM data management foundation. Earlier days PLM complexity was related to product configurations and options. Today electronic and software is a new challenge for PLM data management.

What is conclusion? What was  a challenge for aerospace and automotive industry 20 years, now comes in electronic gadget and IoT connected devices. The ability to manage software, electronic and mechanical parts becomes a pre-requisite for any PLM system deployment. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

photo credit upverter

Share

0 comments

When BOM is not BOM

by Oleg on December 17, 2014 · 0 comments

walks-like-BOM-quacks-like-BOM

Bill of Materials (BOM) is a central part of everything in product development. Sometimes, people call it product structure. Manufacturers are using BOM to define list of raw materials, parts and sub-assemblies with corresponded quantities need to manufacture a product. This is over simplistic definition. As usual, devil is details and BOM story is getting quite complex. Depends to whom are you talking, people see a different aspects of bill of materials – sales options, design hierarchy, product configurations, manufacturing process, service parts. Many systems are defining BOM differently. It depends on their roles and functions in overall product lifecycle.

In one of my recent articles – Thoughts about BOM ownership, I discussed some ideas about how BOM can be shared among organizations and enterprise software tools. That was my attempt to think about how to resolve a conflict between two major BOM stakeholder – Product Lifecycle Management and ERP systems. The BOM management landscape in the organization is complex. In my view, companies are not ready for a single BOM management tools - it was my observation 2 years ago.

At the time a major BOM master ownership dispute is between PLM and ERP vendors, I can see an interesting trend which can put some lights on how PLM companies are articulating their BOM strategies.

Dassault Systems ENOVIA is coming with their “zero BOM error” strategy. I posted about it earlier – PLM and Zero BOM errors: the devil is in details. In a nutshell, ENOVIA is trying to improve process of Bill of Material generation by direct connection between CATIA design and product structure. In my view, it might lead to potential formal elimination of EBOM, which will be replaced by a bundle of design and engineering information. Practically, product structure in CATIA/ENOVIA will represent everything that happens on engineering level. According to ENOVIA strategy, it will eliminate errors between design and engineering.

In parallel, I’m observing the way BOM is positioned by Siemens PLM. Teamcenter blog – Introducing BOM management speaks about BOM information as a vital part of many processes supported by PLM. I found interesting how “BOM management” term was replaced by “Product definition”. Here is the passage:

I just noticed that as I am writing this I am using the words “bill of materials” less and “product definition” more. I would go back and correct – I wanted to keep it a surprise!  But I think it’s ok – it helps me get to this next part. To us, it has become abundantly clear that one of the problems that come up when you talk about bill of materials (BOM) management is that the scope of what people might mean is so broad. To call all those things listed above “BOM Management” is not sufficient.  We’ve collected these capabilities into an umbrella we call the Integrated Product Definition. This is an area where we have been leaders, and it continues as a high priority for us – we have the breadth and depth to address these issues like nobody else can.

In both situations, I can see a strategy by PLM vendors to redefine BOM and bring up the extended value PLM environment for customers. This is a very important transformation in my view, since it helps to streamline processes. The problem of synchronization between design and engineering environment is well-known and not solved in many companies. Teamcenter is connecting BOM management into varietly of topics such as part management, master data management, configuration management, coordinate change and variability and others. It helps to create a solid platform to manage product data.

However, the biggest fight over the BOM is between PLM and ERP environments. Engineering.com outlined it in their article – The next big boom in PLM is a battle over MBOM ownership. Muris Capital Advisors outlined the sam conflict in the blog post – The Battle for BOM Control. According to Bruce Boes of Muris Capital, service integrators will play a leading role in making alignment between PLM and ERP and forming BOM master model. Here is an interesting passage:

We predict that System Integrators have a unique opportunity and from our recent experience, the desire to bridge the gap and add value during integration with the BOM as a key point of integration.  In doing so they open the market for process consulting and integration services surrounding the master model concept. 

The last one make sense. In many PLM implementation projects, SI teams are actually leading development of PLM-ERP integration on site or using different middleware or integration toolkits. Unfortunately, the cost of these implementation is high and overall process is very complex.

What is my conclusion? PLM vendors redefining BOM by tight integrating of product information into development processes. From what I can see, both Teamcenter and ENOVIA are trying to redefine Bill of Material (BOM) as a wider topic. This is an interesting strategy to fight over MBOM ownership. Integrated “product definition” can help to streamline processes between engineering and manufacturing. However, the end game should be total BOM experience including all manufacturing aspects – manufacturing process planning, cost and orders. The last one brings PLM-ERP integration topic back on the table. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Share

0 comments

Mass customization is the real reason for PLM to want MBOM

November 25, 2014

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 […]

Share
Read the full article →

Thoughts about BOM ownership

November 20, 2014

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 […]

Share
Read the full article →

Tesla, iPad on wheels and BOM management complexity

October 28, 2014

The complexity of manufacturing is skyrocketing these days. It sounds reasonable for many of us when it comes to spaceships, jetliners and defense systems. You can think about car as something much simpler. Navigate to Ford Heritage website article – Ford Celebrates 100 Years of the Moving Assembly Line. The complexity of Ford Model T […]

Share
Read the full article →

Multiple dimensions of BOM complexity

October 15, 2014

Bill of Material topic is getting more attention these days. No surprise. BOM is a center of universe in manufacturing (and not only) world. People can disagree about terminology applied to BOM management. Depends on a specific domain people can call it part list, specification, formula. But at the same time, everybody speak about the […]

Share
Read the full article →

Manufacturing BOM dilemma

October 8, 2014

Manufacturing process optimization is one of the biggest challenges in product development these days. Companies are looking how to low the cost, optimize manufacturing process for speed and to deliver large variety of product configurations. The demand for these improvements is very high. The time when engineering were throwing design”over the wall of engineering“ is over. […]

Share
Read the full article →

How many parts will be in a 3D printed vehicle?

September 16, 2014

3D printing is buzzing trend these days. If you are not up to speed with the trend, you probably should. Because it changes everything around. Start today from Wikipedia article about 3D printing (aka as additive manufacturing). Today’s announcement about GrabCAD acquisition by Stratasys- leading 3D printing company is another confirmation about important role additive manufacturing […]

Share
Read the full article →

PLM and Zero BOM errors: the devil is in details

September 10, 2014

To manage Bill of Materials (BOM) is not a simple job. Often you can hear a simple definition of bill of material as a “list of component needed to build a product”. However, in reality, BOM is much more complex and contains information about product structure, the ways product is manufactured, maintained and even disposed. […]

Share
Read the full article →