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 the end.
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 >>>

Hi everyone,

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
trying to
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
item number?

Thanks Daniel Warthold P. ENG CPIM


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

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 [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.