How do you structure BoMs for infinitely variable products, such as cables?

[Osen]

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for some guidance/resources on how to structure BoMs for products such as cables where the customer can choose the length and how each side could be terminated. The company I'm at is relatively small, but we're growing. With this growth we're reviewing how we structure/manage our documentation. We offer standard fiber optic cable products, but also allow custom orders at additional cost. However, I'm not sure how to efficiently create/structure the BoMs based on our standard cables/connectors/crimps etc, that we configure to make the "custom" product. A lot of the components share a similar form factor, but differ by fiber gauge, so the assembly process is often the same as well. I feel like there's a way this could all be abstracted so that it'll be easier to us to make the documentation for these configured products going forward.

Thank you.

 

[itsmoked]

Every one should have a different number.

Say a particular cable should have a number: 21 for "the cable between the output board and the actuator assy".

Then 97 "for the length".

Then 12 for the "customer pinout"

21-97-12

Or if your system has the savvy manage "the customer" as an abbreviation your assemblers can relate to. -IBM or -AMAT (Applied Materials)

Keith Cress
kcress -

http://www.flaminsystems.com

 

[rb1957]

I'd've thought you'd have a base number for the cable construction and length would be a dash number (length in inches) ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[3DDave]

Look at other cable companies that offer the same services. I'd make the order number and item number be the part number and let software do the heavy lifting of generating the BOM and keeping track of the individual components.

 

[EdStainless]

It depends, do just want to keep track or do you want a 'rational' system?
In a so called rational system the part number contains the information, so you have 12-A4-BN-97, where the cable type is 12, , one end is and A4, and the other end is a BN or whatever codes you give to the terminations, and length 97. Often this would become 12A4BN-97 since there are likely a finite number of termination combinations.
Yes these part numbers can get rather unwieldy but they can be clearly identified. Whereas if you just tabulate the options the number itself means nothing and errors may be harder to find.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy

 

[btrueblood]

We have a part numbering system, developed by us engineers and used for drawing identification, which is similar to Ed's idea. I.e. it's a human-readable part number. We had a MBA come on board and mandate a new business software, and with it a 4-digit part number system. When a tech comes to ask me about a problem, and gives me a 4-digit number, I have no idea what he's talking about, and we waste a minimum of 15 minutes wrangling numbers with the computer. Still hate that MBA.

 

[3DDave]

15 minutes? It should be more like 15 seconds and the tech should have the documentation in hand. I use a Wiki and it managed easily with non-rational part numbers from dozens of different schemes without trouble, including a list of everywhere any particular part was used. If it took more than 15 seconds to find what I needed I'd be worried. I'd be more unhappy with the slow software than the number change.

 

[ProEpro]

Does your cad system have a configuration tool that lets you automaticly create documentation from a set of input like a structured part number?

 

[Sparweb]

Not knowing all the details of what you do/don't put on your drawings, I'll suggest this:
Make a process standard that your assemblers use for all the skilled tasks they do. Set up the process standard in such a way that if the drawing calls up a specific part #, the assemblers know what to do with it from the process standard already. Now the drawing doesn't have to specify these details. It allows the drawing to focus on configuration.

Our CAD software doesn't handle multiple configurations smoothly, so I feel your pain. I am probably not using my software's capabilities to its full potential, bin I also know that if what I want to do is easy, I would also expect it to be obvious. Since it isn't obvious, I know that making my CAD do it will be hard.

http://www.sparweb.ca