TECHNICAL ARTICLE
Originally Printed in the February 2000 Issue of EP&P
Magazine
MANAGING FRONT–END DATA MORE EFFECTIVELY
Automating the management of front-end data can lower production costs.
Computer
integrated manufacturing (CIM) software tools can significantly increase
production efficiency by quickly and reliably converting CAD and BOM
data into manufacturing outputs such as machine programs and process
documentation. Through the optimized integration of production processes
with critical error-free manufacturing data, CIM software provides
faster new product introduction and engineering changes. These benefits
include providing the factorymore and higher quality information, while
also decreasing engineering overhead.
As comprehensive and effective as CIM software tools can be, data
processing and management at the front end of assembly has been lagging
in technical capability and performance. As a result, the speed of new
product introduction, change processing, and accuracy benefits of CIM
have historically been undermined by the labor-intensive processing of
data contained in bills of materials (BOMs) and computer-aided design
(CAD) files, and by management of customer revisions and approved vendor
lists (AVLs).
That scenario is changing. Software now exists that automates and
expedites reconciliation of part numbers, evaluation and maintenance of
AVLs, verification of BOM data, and comparisons of BOMs for different
assemblies and different revisions (versions) of the same assembly.
Consequently, data processing at the front end can be as efficient as
the CIM tools and interfaces that employ the data when converting CAD
and BOM data into useful manufacturing outputs and data.
Analyzing and managing BOMs is a cumbersome and time-consuming task,
especially for contract manufacturers. This is because customer part
numbers for components differ from the internal part numbers used by the
contractor. (However, where the manufacturer is an OEM, the “customer”
part number and the internal part number are most often the same, as the
OEM is the customer.) When part numbers differ, an inordinate amount of
time is spent verifying, comparing, cross-referencing, and parsing BOMs.
The numbers must be mapped to ensure a proper match. Part numbers used
by CAD engineers also must be matched to internal part numbers. Until
this is done, assembly is at standstill.
BOMs for assemblies are often compared, especially those for different
revisions of the same assembly. When performed manually, the process can
be painfully slow, as every component must be checked. Unfortunately,
the tediousness of the effort may cause boredom, which in turn, may lead
to errors, and small details are easily missed. Comparing BOMs is a
critical task for manufacturers. They need to record exactly how an
assembly is being changed, whether the changes are initiated internally
by engineering change notices (ECNs) or externally by a customer’s
request. The history of these changes must be immediately and easily
accessible.
Approved vendor lists also can be a problem. Vendors have their own part
numbers, which typically differ from both the customer’s part numbers
and the manufacturer’s internal part numbers. To order components from
vendors, these numbers must be reconciled as well. Actually, a system is
usually established that identifies the vendors approved by the customer
for purchasing particular components. Complex tracking and documentation
of such information can be a burden, especially when vendors and
components change depending on the board being assembled, and the
particular board revision. For instance, the designation of a certain
supplier for a specific component may change when a new revision of the
board becomes available.
Author Information:
Jason Spera, Chief Executive Officer
Aegis Industrial Software Corporation
220 Gibraltar Road, Suite 100
Horsham, PA 19044