Comments on: Do we need multi-faceted BOM compare?

By: cupon

cupon — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:03:57 +0000

cupon…

[...]Do we need multi-faceted BOM compare? « Daily PLM Think Tank Blog[...]…

By: olegshilovitsky

olegshilovitsky — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:42:50 +0000

Paul, Thanks for your examples and thoughts! I agree, net changes and comparison of multiple structures are complicated. I see your example with ECO is sort of a case that can implement “results of complicated comparison”. If such comparison can be automated and presented to end-user it would be the best result in my view. My main point is that “comparison” is something that hard to handle. However, we need to have a result of the comparison. So, from the user perspective, results need to be generated by automatic compare… Does it make sense to you? Best, Oleg

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:14:59 +0000

I think another key issue here is that one (or more) of the BoMs can be in motion. For example, the design is being modified to incorporate 3 CNs (ECO’s) across 3 systems, whilst the Planning BoM is also being modified, however the changes to the planning structure are grouped by Assembly whilst the design changes are by system. This is a difficult comparison (by the time the 3 ECO changes have been incorporated into both structures, another ECO is being incorporated into the design) but it is simple compared to doing the same across either structures with different nomenclature for the same object (e.g. Part number in design vs Nato Stock Number in the Logistics Support view) or comparing actual delivered BoMs (many off) to a set of As-Design BoMs.

We have looked at using the ECOs to manages this comparison – if an ECO has been processed into both structures and the net effect of the ECO is the same (e.g. Plus these parts, minus these parts) then the key is incorporation of the ECOs, not part level comparison of the BoMs. Additionally, this mechanism can reconcile documentation if necessary.#

I would see the ERP comparison as two (or more) versions of the same structure which have both been Released, the PLM problem is comparison of the content of two (or more) differently organised structures, where the maturity of the two structures can be different.

Paul

By: olegshilovitsky

olegshilovitsky — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:32:26 +0000

Martijn, This is exactly point I wanted to make. To compare multi-line-level BOMs side-by-side is very complicated work. In the end designer/engineer need to know result. I’d assume, comparison need to be done multiple times (depends on actual task(s)), so performance will be really critical. Thanks for your comments and welcome to plmtwine discussion! Best, Oleg.

By: Martijn Dullaart

Martijn Dullaart — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:01:55 +0000

I agree with you Oleg, that side-by-side BOM compare is not really useful. Most of our users want a proper and fast way to find the difference between 2 versions, both single and multi level. Not only the presentation but also the performance is really important in case you compare 2 large product structures (let’s say about 4000 lines each).

Currently we have multiple reports/output formats available to support the community in getting the right view of the delta depending on their need. Because we have in one environment the Engineering BOM, Manufacturing BOM (actually the BOM allocated to suppliers) and the Service BOM. Where the MBOM and SBOM are a view on the Engineering BOM.

By: olegshilovitsky

olegshilovitsky — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:39:57 +0000

Roberto, I understand, ERP have more widely used set of feature related to Bill of Materials. You point about “useful” lead me to the following set of questions – do you see ERP more mature for BOM management? do you think ERP have appropriated data to provide comparison and analyses you need to perform? Is it related somehow to the roles of the people involved into this work? Thank you for contributation… great discussion! Cheers, Oleg.

By: Roberto Picco

Roberto Picco — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:16:09 +0000

Maybe I was too concise. You surely use BOM in CAD/PDM system, but my personal experience leads me to believe that most useful BOM manipulations/comparison/analyses are performed at an ERP level. This vision is surely biased by what I’ve seen so far, but I think I’m not a white fly…

By: olegshilovitsky

olegshilovitsky — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:42:27 +0000

Roberto, why you are saying BOM is ERP function? In my view, with many Bill of Materials (design, engineering, manufacturing etc.) it’s really spread out of multiple systems. I’ve see people are managing BOMs in so various combinations of systems and tools… Faceted analyses make sense. It sounds better to me. I’m trying to avoid faceted compare, since to handle results of this compare is hard work, in my view. Thanks for you notes! Oleg.

By: olegshilovitsky

olegshilovitsky — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:39:15 +0000

Shibin, thanks for sharing this experience. BOM work becomes very complicated fast. What are typical “comparison tasks” you need to do in case of different Bill of Materials…? Regards, Oleg

By: Roberto Picco

Roberto Picco — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:44:47 +0000

I think BOMs management is a key feature of an ERP software. I’m not sure ERP software should delegate BOMs management but BOMs creation only. And to answer your question, Oleg, the more “faceted” is the BOMs analysis, the better, IMHO…