Save As eBOM & mBOM

[ehorn]

Idea to save both the eBOM part along with it's downstream view, mBOM.  This would help to enable engineering to make custom, one off, versions of complete assemblies that just have a minor modification. 

Problem:

If the business currently has an eBOM and mBOM and does a Save-As, only one view of the BOM can be saved.  This means that the eBOM is saved to keep the eBOM with linked CAD.  Then the mBOM must be created from scratch over again.

Solution:

Save the mBOM along with the eBOM to maintain the equivalent link between the BOM and to preserve all location, logic, and visualization information. 

[ChrisPLM]

Hi Eric

if what you say is true this is a big disappointment that this does not already exist.

When I need to create a new product from an existing one. I am expecting to perform a Save As with all related information that I can filter out.

So, if I have a eBOM (with relationships to CAD; WTDocs) and existing mBOM (sBOM etc..) and process plan for one or more manufacturing plant. I am expecting to be able to collect all this to create the new product.

I appreciate that there would be a big table that need to get use to it but this would save so much time and increase productivity.

If that is not possible in 10.2 (your idea is from yesterday so I expect you are refering to 10.2), then this is a big disappointment.

We are in the process of evaluation solutions and I will ask our vendor)

Best regards

[ChrisPLM]

Maybe it is possible to separately copy the MBOM which could not be copied at the same time and associate the new copy to the new eBOM.

At least that way it is not necessary to recreate the mbom from scratch ?

[GregoryPERASSO]

Hi Eric, Chris

Nice idea,  We've got this problem too ...

But in our case, not sure that can fit all our cases . for the same use case as described by Chris.

We ask to PTC a kind of "Save as Dowstream view to existing design" . To be able to do that in a second time.  Cause I think in many Companies,  Design and manuf are still different group ...

In our Organization/Process,  the design engineer will not take the initiative/decision of copying the mBOM ... notably for "added raw material sub levels".  Depending of the difference in the duplicated Design (notably material  or form/fit ) In some case the new design can reuse the same raw material .. and in some case not ...

An we've got also for Manufacturing Views lot of alternatives  (which are other branch that we could, or not, save as ) and a  Service BOM

regards

Gregory

[ehorn]

You can separately copy the mBOM and create it as a new eBOM, then use that for your downstream view of the other eBOM.  But this does not retain any of the links between the upstream and downstream view that MPMlink is so useful for.  If you are not using MPMlink this isn't a big issue as there is little to no work to maintain a downstream view.

If you are using MPMlink you loose all links between the BOM's.  These links are very important and is the sole way we are getting Process Plan and Work Instructions to our shop floor.  I've heard in 11.0 of Windchill MPMlink will be able to try to recreate the links between the upstream and downstream but this still isn't the same as actually doing a "Save-As" an already existing released structure that is 100% complete.

[GregoryPERASSO]

Eric

We use MPMlink. But we share the same WTpart number  (just create new downstream Views) when Design level exists "as is" in stock

We create a new downstream part when it is a new part (ie a new "physical state") needed by the manuf process ... raw materials, semi finished, intermediate assembly states , etc ...

So realy need the "save as as new view" feature

regards

[ovonbohuszewicz]

Hi Eric, Chris,

we have got the same situation. When we want to "save" as a product (CAD-assembly, eBoM and mBoM), there is a lot of non-value-added work to create a new mBoM from the copied eBoM. You would expect a "save as" to collect all views.

kind regards,

Oskar

[OliverDroop]

What needs to be taken into account is that engineers who do the save as might not have the knowledge nor the permission to create the downstream view data! Therefore I prefer the idea to recreate the equivalent links after or during save as.

Process could be designer copies eBOM and does changes. Later on MFG engineer copies the original mBOM. The save as navigates from the source wtpart to the equivalent in upstream view. Gathering all equivalent links to source downstream and recreates the structure in target downstream based on available parts.

For changed/added data in copy of eBOM there should be a triangle that there is no equivalent information available and needs to be created manually by MFG engineer.

Please comment on this approach

Thx

Oliver

[ChrisPLM]

Hi Oliver

I have not considered this approach before. I think you are spot on. if a designer engineer is allowed to do a Save As that will take eBOM and mBOM at the same time, surely he needs to have the correct authorisation and as a consequence that would grant him authorization to do whatever in the mBOM.

If that same person has two roles (design and MFG) then OK, but in bigger organisation this could create issues.

Another option is to be able to create an mBOM only via a save as of a eBOM, that would already help the MFG guy but that designer would not be able to do anything else.

Just a thought.

Thanks

[PaulEngelberth]

The WC 11  MPMLink  EBOM to MBOM transformation tool (MAPSB) directly  supports creating a "downstream" view of a BOM with a new Part View by using the "New Downstream Branch" action on the top level part in the EBOM (Design) view.  This also creates the Equivalence links between the Upstream and Downstream BOM components at the same time.

[GregoryPERASSO]

We are more in the process described by Oliver

We have already discussed this use case with PTC R&D.

first of all for us, it is 2 different population of users

And when Save As the mBOM, the mBOM transformation is depending of what change in eBOM

-a new eBOM where we only change some dimensions, may be we will reuse exactly the same Manufacturing Raw material WTparts,  Or not ...

-a new eBOM where we only change material or colors, may be in this case we will do a real save as....

And what about of Alternate BOMs for alternate Manuf processes, alternate sourcing^or alternate Plants

And same type of problematic for downstream objects like ProcessPlan if you use the full MPMLink package. when Save As a mBOM, should I collect or not the related ProcessPlan.  Sometime yes, some time no ....

[ehorn]

That functionality has been in MPMLink for a long time.  That isn't the goal here.  The issue is if I'm doing a save-as of an existing design and I'm doing a minor tweak to it.  I don't want to have to recreate everything from scratch over again.  That would include tranforming the mBOM, creating the process plan, allocation of parts to the mbom.

Also just because it creates an equivalent link to the new downstream branch doesn't mean the downstream branch has all the correct parts with position and logic from options and variants. 

[ehorn]

Oliver,

You do pose an interesting scenario in the workflow for the save-as.  The tricky part is it would be difficult to save-as one mBOM view to another mBOM view.  You could probably do a save-as the mBOM from one to a new BOM, then make that new BOM the mBOM for an eBOM. 

PTC, from what I've heard, has a new way to create the Equilavelent Occurrence links between the eBOM and mBOM by using such things as the position of the part using the occurrence location information.  But this is not a perfect algorithm and might only be 50 - 70% accurate.

The scenario I'm proposing would keep in tact 100% all the work that was done to create both the eBOM and mBOM from the original object.  The engineer could then modify the eBOM, but it would still need a manufacturing planner to reconcile the mBOM and update the Equivalent link to point to the new iteration of the eBOM.

That also makes possible the acceleration of design for product variations that Gregory was discussing above.  You want to do the exact same object but with a color change, or maybe a material change on the part. 

[HerwigSchwarz]

Great news that this idea has been acknowledged!

I hope the (optional) copying of associated process plans will also be taken into account, as this is a very important factor in such a functionality.

[Arjen]

We defined a solution for this with existing MPMLink functionality (Windchill 11). Perhaps this is a solution for you as well.

As an example:

1.   Create Design view and derived Manufacturing view

          Part 123 (Design)   -- >   Part 123 (Manufacturing)

2.   Save As or Supercede with changed Design

          Part 123 (Design) save as to Part 234 (Design)

3.   Open part 234 (Design) in Manufacturing Associative Part Structure Browser as upstream and part 123 (Manufacturing) as downstream

4.   Click on icon New Downstream Branch Variant and a copy of part 123 (Manufacturing) is created as part 234 (Manufacturing) containing all the related          data of part 123 (manufacturing)

This way we are able to reuse the existing definition of part 123 (Manufacturing) including documents, process plans, etc. and use it as a basis to update the mBOM according to the engineering changes applied to part 234 (Design).

[TomM]

Hi,

@ArjenThis does not seem to work the way you described (11.1 M020 CPS16).

Step 2 in both cases results with a new, duplicated structure without any related objects (PP).

Step 4 does not add any related objects (PP).

Could you review the steps you've given, please?

Was anyone lucky reproducing these steps?