Skip to main content
R
RahulK1-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 2, 2011
Question

Requesting Input - CAD Driven BoM

  • February 2, 2011
  • 8 replies
  • 1613 views
All,

We are planning to move from Pro/I 3.4 and Windchill 8 environment to a single PLM environment (most likely Windchill 10). We are also considering to implement CAD driven BoM concept. The idea is that a CAD model gets create in Pro/E and then upon check the corresponding bom gets published in Windchill. On paper the concept looks really good. It can basically eliminate / reduce redundant task of creating engineering bill of material.

Has your company tried to implement this concept ? If yes, what all did it take to make it a success? If you have considered but have decided not to implement CAD driven bom then what were you concerns ?

Looking forward to your feedback.

Thank you,

Rahul Kharkar
Manager - Windchill PLM Program
Novellus System Inc

8 replies

R
rhoffmann1-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 2, 2011
Ahh, the holy grail of PLM. Usually falls down when considering the integration with existing MRP/ERP, as designed vs. as manufactured and variant configs. Lots to consider... I have seen it partially implemented successfully where the "Engineering BOM" existed in Windchill and the "Manufacturing BOM" existed in MPR.

There is lots of hard work involved in process, configuration and tying the two together. Might need to look into engaging a consultant.
avillanueva
23-Emerald I
avillanueva23-Emerald I
23-Emerald I
February 3, 2011
We have done this at my company. You have to make sure your CAD assembly matches your BOM exactly. That being said there are cases where your CAD assembly will not and for valid reasons (example: Tool design where you have the assembly that the Tool is operating on in the Tool assembly). The CAD assembly controls the Windchill BOM, its unit or measure and quantity. The benefit is that you can catch mistakes between the CAD and final BOM. Downsize is freedom and control of the Windchill BOM. Our solution was to use View versions. We start with the Design view and when all the possible edits are done (ref des, non-modeled components, etc) the user creates the next view which we called Engineering (renamed from Manufacturing). This allows the user to remove components, change units of measure (like from each to reference) and quantity. It has the added benefit of separating CAD assemblies with structure (such as a COTS model that appears as a single line item but is a CAD assembly) from real BOMs that we want to manage. It was easier for users to grasp than disassociating and associating.

K
kpritchard1-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 3, 2011

My suggestion is an 80/20 approach... get 80% ROI/Value add for 20% effort.

This amounts to using the Auto-Associate to build a WTPart Structure (Windchill eBOM) [transforming eBOM's to various downstream views via MPM-Link functionality on it's way to ERP/MRP is a bigger chunk of complexity but a definite future benefit]. Where you can run into issues here is when you leave the association as "Owner" you can run into quantity/UoM mismatches and other "frustrations" (like soft goods - a single hydraulic hose P/N with multiple installed shapes is a prime example). An approach that has proven to work is to change the Association to "Content". You'll also want to make sure that users are selective in their auto-associatingor you'll end up with meaningless components (as an example - a weldment modelled as an assembly: you probably don't want individualWTParts and P/N's generated for all of the items that wouldbe in a material cut sheet - just the welded component)I've found the best way to do this is to get everything uploaded and checked in and then doing a selective auto-associate using "mark for Check-In"

So in short,we've found that CAD driven build shifted to Windchill driven WTPart Structure isa suitable approachwith the CAD drivenBOM being an effective tool to automate the building of the BOM and constituent components, but flexible enoughnot to get hemmed in by the nuances ofCAD references and representation.

Hope this helps

S
SteveVinyard1-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 3, 2011
As a side question. How is everyone doing the "push" to their ERP?

[cid:image001.gif@01CBC396.A371B540]

Steve Vinyard
Application Engineer
avillanueva
23-Emerald I
avillanueva23-Emerald I
23-Emerald I
February 3, 2011
I have a custom job at the end of my workflow to export EC and BOM
information. Looking ahead to SAP and direct ESI integration.


P
patrick.chin11-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 4, 2011

What are your business requirements?

  1. are you only considering a ProE implentation
  2. are you only considering a Mechanical Engineering BOM centric version.
  3. Will you consider other functional areasof designof your product, such as, electrical, artwork, software, technical publications
  4. Will Windchill replace engineering change control for you entire company and integrate with your ERP tool
  5. Will you have MBOMs and other types of BOMs.

If your answers are fro 1 and 2 above, its fine to have ProE BOMs generate the BOMs. If you plan for 3 to 5, you will have issues of which functional group controls the entire Product BOM.

Something to think about for future plans of Windchill.

P
patrick.chin11-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 4, 2011

To answer the other thread regarding the push. At Psion, integration was being done via ECNs which contained generated mapped values of ERP information based on the nomenclature of the WTParts. This producedthe standard format of theBAAN ERPdatafiles which autmatically can beuploaded based on a call to BAANloader service. Since the ERP information was just the initial data entry point for default fields of the ERP information, it is best to keep it out of the PLM objects and used logical attribute mapping instead in the background. Thus, the ERP information will mature after the fact the PLM objects have released which will not result in changes in the PLM information.

L
LewisLawrence13-Aquamarine
13-Aquamarine
February 7, 2011

In Reply to Steve Vinyard:

As a side question. How is everyone doing the "push" to their ERP?


Steve,

At Weatherford we use a listener service to catch the following events on a WTPart and WTPartMaster:

Rename

Change State

Check-in

If the WTPart version being checked in is the latest version, or in the case of the WtPartMaster if the latest version is in one of the following states then an update is published to ERP.

Prototype

Released

Inactive

Obsolete

This means Windchill updates the item master record in ERP, there we use a combination of the State in Windchill and the line type in ERP to control the Stocking type in ERP, Stocking type controls certain behavior. E.G.

Prototype parts can be manufactured, but not sold.

Released parts are completely open for transaction.

Inactive parts can be sold, but not bought or made.

Obsolete parts cannot be sold, made or bought.

We also pass the Engineering BOM from the Windchill WTPart to ERP, when a user creates a new Item Branch plant record in ERP particular to their location, they automatically “Inherit” the BOM as sent from Windchill. They can add new lines to this BOM, but cannot remove or modify lines that are managed in Windchill.

If you are interested in more detail on how all this works in more detail, it is available from a presentation I gave at the World event in 2009, “Feeding the Beast with Release to Production”.

Good luck,

-----

Lewis

Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement