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

Engineering change and EBOM to MBOM synchronization complexity

Engineering change and EBOM to MBOM synchronization complexity
Oleg
Oleg
27 November, 2014 | 3 min for reading

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

Disclaimer: I’m the co-founder and CEO of OpenBOM, a digital-thread platform providing cloud-native PDM, PLM, and ERP capabilities. With extensive experience in federated CAD-PDM and PLM architecture, I’m advocates for agile, open product models and cloud technologies in manufacturing. My opinion can be unintentionally biased.

Recent Posts

Also on BeyondPLM

4 6
30 July, 2010

I read Virtual Desktop Are Hot Again by Gigaom. The discussion is interesting and I see a real connection between cost reduction...

20 June, 2012

Well… It happened. Microsoft officially became “hardware company”. Keyboards, mice, even XBOX and Kinect… All these devices are in a...

27 February, 2009

I was inspired to see Josh’s post on Solidsmack – Your Future 3D CAD Interface May be Soft, Cozy Memory...

26 July, 2015

TechCrunch article Software for the full stack era speaks about brutal reality existing business software platforms are going through. From the...

25 March, 2019

During the last decade, we’ve seen the establishment of new business models in software. I checked my blog about future...

23 January, 2015

Integration of CAD and PDM is a field with long history of battles, innovation and failures for the last 15-20...

18 August, 2009

Another prompt today. Oracle is devoting two full days and 70 sessions at the upcoming OpenWorld conference to its Primavera...

7 January, 2013

What do you think about “social PLM” trend? I don’t see many cheerleaders of social PLM nowadays. The excitement and...

2 June, 2010

I had chance to read an article in SD time – Organization works to blend application, product life-cycle management. Author...

Blogroll

To the top