Posts tagged as:

BOM

zero-bom-errors

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. The variety of requirements coming from multiple departments make BOM a complex information entity. Because of diversity of disciplines, organizations and tools BOM traditionally managed as a separate structures related to design, engineering, manufacturing, support, supply chain, etc. Mistakes in Bill of Material management are costly and painful to companies. It can lead to wrong material orders, shipment delays, regulation issues and many other problems.

My attention was caught by few examples of PLM vendors emphasizing their ability to support “zero BOM errors” in their BOM management solutions.

First example came from Dassault Systems ENOVIA. Navigate to my post  - PLM, demolished silos and closed BOM loop. You can get more information also in recent Razorleaf blog covering ENOVIA conference here. According to ENOVIA, errors are coming from synchronization or design and engineering BOM. Therefore “zero file solution” strategy developed by Dasasult System ENOVIA will lead to zero BOM problems. Here is a passage from both articles:

The zero error BOM (Bill of Materials) demands a zero file solution. 3DEXPERIENCE brings the zero file world into the engineering environment; what we do is to connect directly to product data, not to files”. 

Dassault spent significant time at the event returning to the theme of the business benefits of ENOVIA, describing a “Power of Zero” mantra across ENOVIA’s capabilities (for example, “Target Zero BOM Errors”). ENOVIA CEO Andy Kalambi offered a nice overview of how these “Power of Zero” themes connect the direction of the ENOVIA product line with the business needs of ENOVIA’s customers.

Second example came from Arena Solutions case study – How Nutanix Reduced BOM Errors to Absolute Zero. You can download case study for free by registering on the website. Interesting enough, the problem of “Zero BOM errors” is completely different here. It speaks to collaboration and access of BOM by multiple people in a team or even different organizations suppliers. Here is an interesting quote from case study that outlines that:

“Our suppliers now access the same BOM and revision, and we have had zero wrong BOMs built since the system was implemented. Configuration integrity is assured… Change management was a nightmare,” said Sangster. “With several people making changes and suggestions to uncontrolled documents there were multiple revisions of the same BOM flying around the ether. No one had any trust in the data, so many local copies abounded based on the ‘mine is right’ premise.”

The devil is in details. When you plan how to implement BOM management, you need to work on multiple use cases. Bill of Material has multiple point of failures. I mentioned two in my post today – 1/ synchronization between design and engineering/PLM tools; 2/ collaboration and  change management scenarios. I can see many other use cases. When you plan a solution, it is important to focus on a specific problem you want to handle. At the same time, when vendor speaks to you about “Zero BOM error”, don’t hesitate to ask questions. Same buzzwords mean different things sometimes.

What is my conclusion? BOM management is a complex domain. It is hard to underestimate the value of having correct BOM without error. BOM errors are costly and to manage consistency of BOM is one of the most important objectives of PLM solutions. At the same time, BOM has multiple points of failure. This is a note to PLM implementers and IT people to focus on important scenarios and not to take “Zero BOM mantra” as silver bullet that solves all problems. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Share

7 comments

ipad-bom-assy

To manage Parts and Bill of Materials is not a simple tasks. I shared some of aspects related to the complexity of Part Numbering last week in my post – Existing data prevents companies to improve Part Numbers. The discussion in comments took me towards the complexity of Part Numbers in supply chain. Here is the passage (comments) made by Joe Barkai

…multiple BOMs with inconsistent numbering schema often hide a bigger problem: inconsistent attributes and metadata. I [Joe Barkai] worked with a global automotive OEM on issues surrounding architectural complexity reduction and global quality management. I discovered that each product line was using different part numbers. This was obviously difficult to manage from a supply chain perspective. But, not less importantly, other metadata and data attributes such as failure modes, labor operation codes and other important information were codified differently, rendering cross product line reporting and analysis difficult and potentially lacking, if not erroneous

Product lines and multiple configurations is a reality of modern manufacturing. The customization level is growing. On the other side to manage parts and BOM globally becomes one of the most important and challenging tasks. I found another example of that in today’s news . This is an example of a potential impact on Apple from management of bill of material  across multiple product lines and supply chain. Navigate to Seeking Alpha post – Apple iPhone 6 Will Pick Up iPad Sales Slack. Here is the passage I captured:

Apple still generates the majority of profits in mobile, despite the slight declines in market share. Last November, research firm IHS estimated  $274 in bill of materials and manufacturing costs for the 16GB iPad Air with Wi-Fi connectivity that retails for $499. Going forward, Tim Cook, operations man, will likely leverage Apple’s immense buying power to further drive down costs for component parts shared between the iPhone 6 and eventual iPad upgrade.

I have no information about PLM system used by Apple to manage bill of materials across product lines. However, I guess, re-use of components among different product lines is a very typical approach used by many manufacturing companies.

What is my conclusion? The complexity of bill of materials management across product lines and supply chain are skyrocketing these days. To manage part numbers, bill of materials, cost and multiple product lines can become a critical part of PLM solution to support manufacturing profitability. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Share

0 comments

historical-part-numbers

Part Numbers is a fascinating topic. I’m coming back to blog about what is the best approach to manage Part Numbers. My last post about it was – Part Numbers are hard. How to think about data first? was just few weeks ago. In that article, I outlined few principles how to keep PN separate from surrounding data focusing on different aspects of parts – description, classification, configurations, suppliers, etc.

Yesterday, my attention  was caught by ThomasNet article – Are Part Numbers Too Smart for Their Own Good? The article nailed down a key issue why companies are still having difficulties with management of Part Numbers. Nothing works from scratch in engineering companies. Complexity of characteristics and history of existing Part Numbers and products are making real difficulties to adopt new PN management concepts. The following passage explains the problem:

Another problem with descriptive numbering is that the description can become out of date and irrelevant over time. Individual parts can have their own life cycles; if a part has been identified according to the product, what happens if that product is discontinued but the part continues to be used in a newer product? Or what if a manufacturer changes vendors and the part number contains the name of the vendor that originally provided the piece?

Gilhooley admits that some Ultra Consultants clients have decided that switching from descriptive to auto-generated numbering would require too much organizational change. Some companies stick with old systems, and some opt for hybrid systems that perhaps retain descriptive numbers for existing parts but use auto-generated numbers for new parts.

It looks like there is no single solution or best practice to solve the problem. The “traditional” engineering approach to keep options to manage a diverse set company configuration looks like the only possible way to solve this problem in existing PLM/ERP systems.

What is my conclusion? History keeps customers from moving forward. There are two aspects of complexity in Part Numbers: 1/ complexity of definition and data classification; 2/ historical records of PN in every company including catalogs and existing products. Together, they create a block to make any changes in existing PN schema and prevent companies from migration towards new approaches. New data modeling technologies must be invented to handle existing data as well as supporting customers to migrate into modern PLM and ERP solutions. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Share

10 comments

PLM, Excel Spreadsheets, Pain Killers and Vitamins

July 29, 2014

We like to compare stuff. Gadgets, cars, hotels, software. We can compare iPhone to Samsung, Canon to Nikon, Honda to Toyota. Software is a special category. When it comes to enterprise software it gets even more complicated. However, marketing comparison is a fascinating type of writing. Arena PLM blog posted a marketing writing – Using […]

Share
Read the full article →

Why 150% BOM will be obsolete in the future?

May 16, 2014

Have you heard about “150% BOM”? BOM management terminology is confusing sometimes. Ed Lopategui gave a shot to explain it in his last GrabCAD blog – 150% BOM: Buy Two, Get One Free. The following passage was my favorite: A 150% BOM isn’t sorely in need of some fitness training or sadly overdrawn at the bank. […]

Share
Read the full article →

Why BOM Management Is Complex?

May 12, 2014

My last post about Manufacturing BOM raised few interesting comments online and offline. One of them by Jos Voskuil  was pretty straightforward – “What is a big deal about MBM”? Jos pointed me on his earlier post – Where is MBOM? This post as well as few other articles I posted earlier - Why companies are not ready […]

Share
Read the full article →

Why Excel and Multi-BOM are killing collaboration?

April 22, 2014

Excel and Bill of Materials. What can be better to start a discussion? One of my favorites blogging buddies and author of eng-eng blog Ed Lopategui hit the button of BOM & Excel discussion in his GrabCAD blog – It’s time to drop Excel BOM. I liked the following passage. It speaks about huge cost involved […]

Share
Read the full article →

Bill of Materials (BOM) Management: Data, Lifecycle, Process

April 2, 2014

In my recent post about bill of materials – Bill of Materials (BOM): process or technology challenge? I touched the variety of topics related to BOM organization – multiple BOMs and need to manage BOM located in different systems. My main question at the post was around how to make the work with multiple BOMs easier? […]

Share
Read the full article →

How PLM can solve problem of global BOM transparency

February 20, 2014

Business is going global. It is not only for large manufacturing companies these days. As a result of cost pressure and searches for new market opportunities, manufacturing companies are looking how to optimize their businesses. Distributed engineering, manufacturing and suppliers environments – reality of manufacturing these days. However, outsourcing and future development of supply chain […]

Share
Read the full article →

How to Combine Engineering and Software BOMs?

January 24, 2014

I remember a conversation that happened to me a decade ago with fellow engineer from one of leading telecom companies. The question I asked him was – how do you know what version of software to load into device? The answer was- “Hm… actually we don’t know much about it. It happens magically”. I have […]

Share
Read the full article →