A blog by Oleg Shilovitsky
Information & Comments about Engineering and Manufacturing Software

Do we need multi-faceted BOM compare?

Do we need multi-faceted BOM compare?
olegshilovitsky
olegshilovitsky
10 July, 2009 | 2 min for reading

bom-compareThe following blog article by Anurag Batra drove my attention today – “Comparing BOM Structures: a multi-faceted need”. The author is asking if “BOM comparison” is needed function in the PLM system and especially interested in the “multi-faceted” Bill of Material comparison. He is asking these questions in the context of enhancements made in the new Agile 9.3. He wrote – “Most PDM, PLM and ERP systems offer the ability to compare Bills of Material structures side by side. Agile have had a BOM Comparison report for many years – it allowed for comparison of multiple BOM structures side by side. With 9.3, we’ve enhanced the report greatly – focusing on the use case of deep multi-level comparison between two BOM structures”. Later in this article Anurag explains new features, how possible to compare multiple levels of multiple release changes etc. According to him, Agile 9.3 version provides excellent features that improve the capability to compare Bill of Materials in multiple ways. I’ve been a bit confused in the end of Anurag’s post by his question to readers, how they actually compare BOMs and what can be possible use cases for newly introduced reports…

Here is my Think Tank question… Do we really want to compare the Bill of Materials? Except for the fact that we always excited by the features and capabilities of our software, I guess the comparison is a very complex task. Each time I’m trying to compare structures, I feel unsecured. To compare multi-level structures that include multiple changes is very complicated, in my view. I’d be very interested to see examples of multi-faceted BOM comparison Anurag is talking about…

Here is my view:
1.  Bill of Material comparison is a very complicated task.

2. Designers and Engineers are less interesting “to compare”, but more interesting to find the difference between two versions of designs of product structures.

3. Maybe we need to think about functions in our software that provide “results” and not put users in complicated scenarios of comparing multiple structures?

I’m looking forward to your responses and open discussion…

Best, Oleg

Disclaimer: I’m co-founder and CEO of OpenBOM developing a digital network-based platform that manages product data and connects manufacturers and their supply chain networksMy opinion can be unintentionally biased.

Recent Posts

Also on BeyondPLM

4 6
7 January, 2014

Social topic might have another interesting turn. During few days off I had last week, I was reviewing unread social...

10 May, 2011

After talking very positively about PLM and Cloud, it is a time to think about negative sides of the cloud...

26 June, 2017

Five Ways Product Design Teams Fail at Data Management article by Engineering.com brings results of survey Engineering.com did to learn about...

27 August, 2009

I’m coming with new discussion related to how we can successfully implement Product Lifecycle Management. I think, this issue is...

3 April, 2017

Agile methods are trending these days. As companies are more focusing on speed then ever, the question how iterate fast...

3 July, 2014

I’m sure most of you are familiar with XP (Extreme Programming) – software development methodology, which intent to improve software...

2 February, 2010

I want to propose an unusual theme for our PLM discussion. Let’s talk about trends related to manufacturing and software...

7 February, 2017

Solidworks World 2017 have started yesterday in Los Angeles, CA. It brings ~5000 individual designers, companies, partners and vendors under...

16 March, 2016

PLM was never an easy domain to explain. For the last 10-15 years, marketing tried multiple approaches positioning PLM in a...

Blogroll

To the top