We have a field in our make to customer order parent items that indicate
how many lead wires are in the harness.
We use a rather formalized way to describe parts in the item description,
extra description, routings, such that lists of parts sorted on parts of
their descriptions can turn up some candidates for commons. Commons being
sub-components of a generic description that theoretically could show up in
different end customer parts.
We can sort raw materials by their descriptions to catch any cases of the
same raw materials having been duplicate defined.
A wire of a particular length, particular guage, with certain connectors on
Setup and production efficiencies are such that if the part is physically
identical, it is economical to mass produce it, rather than make lots of
smaller runs of copies with different part #s.
However, there is a trade off vs. staff time to do the analysis to convert
parts into this level of productivity. You only want to be doing it for
parts whose quantities needed are non-zero significant volumes.
When a new part is first engineered, we use the customer part # then a dash
then a system for numbering all components of the part. This means a high
likelihood that some components are identical to each other, to other parts
for the same or other customers.
Once a customer part # dash sub assembly is "converted" into a common, the
old part gets a field designating the replacement, and an item type, and
other stuff redirecting engineers and production people to the replacement
designation, so that inventory and any orders in the works can be
redesignated with the replacement numbering.
Once customer sub-components have been redesginated as pointing at the
replacement common, we can use BOM where-used and so forth to locate any
BOM pointing at the old designations.
Our production paperwork prints side by side the routing instructions,
which include naming how the component parts are to be combined, and the
next level of BOM children needed. Any time the two lists are not in
agreement, you can be sure QC and production catch it and notify
engineering for correction.
Al Macintyre http://www.ryze.com/go/Al9Mac
i have not done this but i'd approach this using a series of query
programs. something like extract all parents and components out of the
MBM file, then count each parent / component relationship to see how
many times that relationship occurs, append this into each record, and
then go back and check all components for each parent to see how many
times it occurs with other parents. from this you should be able to
determine if a the same set of components exists for another parent.
again i have not done this, but this would be a real interesting series
of queries to develop on a quiet Saturday morning.
>>> daniel.warthold@xxxxxxxxx 12/08/04 12:28PM >>>
Is there an easy way, to check if there are duplicate BOM's, meaning
exact same components, quantities, no more no less, in the same
same method, but with 2 (or more) different parents? Does mot matter if
MBM.BSEQ, MBM.BBUBB, the effectivity dates, or any other fields,
the BOM notes (MPN) and ref des (MBZ) are different. Basically I'm
look for 2 or more manufactured items that are identical in regards to
list of their components, but have different item number. Like if the
engineers designed again an already existing item, but given it a
Daniel Warthold P. ENG CPIM
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2021 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.