Part counts, variations, product complexity, and manufacturing volumes are all rising in the ever-changing business landscape as firms from all industries are expanding into new markets and developing goods, and as consumer preferences change. Modern products are more complex than their basic mechanical and electrical component designs. They include more software and electrical components, are equipped with sensors and actuators, and may feature product-as-a-service versions.
when a result, when various structures, kinds, and combinations are developed along the value chain, the bill of material (BOM) becomes increasingly complicated. Throughout the course of the product lifecycle, the BOM is a strategic asset that is used for comprehensive digital product definition management. It is critical to comprehend how the Design and Engineering bill of material (EBOM) are decoupled for firms using the Enterprise BOM architecture to advance to the next level of BOM management maturity.
For product creation, research and development organizations often use a top-down, bottom-up, or mixed execution method. As a result, the overall strategy for product development determines how the Design and EBOM are developed over the course of the lifetime. Whether CAD designers build the design system and components or product engineers define assemblies and pieces is dependent on which takes priority. Regardless matter the method a business chooses, it is essential to keep Design and EBOM distinct since they have different responsibilities, related information, procedures, and tools.
Design and EBOM may be written within the same PLM system thanks to system-driven automatic alignment, creating a single source of truth, thorough change management, and product data reuse. Both kinds of structures can develop inside a single PLM environment, each with a rich collection of data, distinct responsibilities, and procedures that are necessary to support the necessary dependencies.
Dummy or reference parts, positioning information, logical connections, technical and functional design restrictions, 2D drawings, 3D models, 3D assemblies, and other design-specific data are examples of design components. Conversely, components are a representation of business information, such as color parts, standard parts, alternate parts, substitute parts, consumables (such as sealants, grease, and lubricants), all buildable configurations (with guidelines and limitations), and quality standards. Product data management in the PLM environment is made efficient and successful by logically combining comparable data sets and arranging via two unique structures, as various qualities and attributes are connected with them. 3D models are used in MCAD, ECAD, and CAE environments for meshing and analysis.
It becomes challenging to store, maintain, and audit these diverse models over the course of the product lifecycle, particularly when several suppliers are involved. As the one source of truth, bringing these crucial data sets into the system of record (PLM) enables users to handle data in an authoritative, auditable, and organized way.
A company would seem to make sense to use a single product structure that contains both design and part aim. There is no need to put up the effort to develop two distinct structures, there is no synchronization or reconciliation problem, and there are no special role-based interfaces because it justifies a single authority for release and change. Although there is room for interpretation in the product specification in the distinct Design and EBOM structure, the technique runs the risk of introducing mistakes and misaligning design components with matching parts in the absence of alignment automation. Organizational impediments may also have an effect on collaboration.
While certain clients may benefit from the single product structure, there are drawbacks to this strategy as well, particularly when it comes to intricate multi-domain product development. Because it necessitates careful coordination with several stakeholders participating in the design and component data writing process, change management may be costly and time-consuming. It also compels disparate organizations to unify behind a common lifespan and structure. This is a significant obstacle for multi-domain BOM management. Information unrelated to one another will be presented to designers and product developers. It is still unclear how writing is defined inside a single product structure.
A company should take into account a variety of factors when deciding whether to decouple Design and EBOM, in addition to product data. These include the product’s lifecycle, variations, volume, complexity across different part domains, cardinality criteria (which could result in a N:N relationship between a design component and a part), change management, and the organization of the data by various roles. Take the activities of an automobile manufacturing, for example, where thousands of automobiles are manufactured every day. A car’s mechanical, electrical, electromechanical, and electronic components are diverse and serve a variety of purposes, including contributing to driver aid systems and safety measures. Complex software applications enhance mobility-as-a-service, connectivity, and entertainment.
The creation, validation, and release of these intricate designs are carried out by a number of domain-specific teams, vendors, and tools. Software components go through phases like design, development, testing, and deployment; hardware components go through a lifetime that comprises stages like drawing, design, verification, and production release. When an automobile is designed with the international market in mind, numerous versions are made to support varied positions for the steering system, manual or automated gear change options, sunroofs, and a wide range of color options, among other modifications. As a result, different designs may be linked to the same steering component because of different positioning requirements. Similarly, due to differences in color or material grades, the external body design may be associated with several components.
In the event that a business lacks this kind of complexity, design and part intent can be handled by a single structure over the duration of the product lifecycle. Decoupling is necessary for many multi-domain goods in order to optimize and arrange product data models according to role requirements while maintaining lifecycle independence. It is also crucial to remember that manual decoupling is nearly difficult for complicated products and necessitates significant administrative overhead in order to maintain alignment between two distinct developing structures. A significant amount of automation is needed to achieve enterprise-level time, cost, and quality savings between the decoupled Design and Engineering BOM structures.
The decoupling of Design and EBOM requires digital interventions and related supporting functional and process skills to assure tight alignment between the two structures as they grow throughout the product lifecycle, in order to fully realize its potential and reap the accompanying advantages. Siemens and Accenture are working together to provide a complete turnkey solution that addresses issues related to design and EBOM management. A four-phase strategy called “diagnostics, blueprinting, MVP (minimum viable product), DBT (design, build, test), and support” is intended to be used to offer the solution. Additionally, it supports the organization’s digital thread and is consistent with the broader Enterprise BOM strategy.
The Siemens solution offers automatic alignment between Design and EBOM, as well as the necessary interface with upstream design systems. It offers flexibility to design unique workflows to meet the demands of an organization and enables a variety of alignment situations during Design and EBOM reconciliation. Real-time 3D BOM visualization, side-by-side views, visual accountability checks, and cross-probing assistance are added to the authoring and alignment of structures. Task-focused user experience and a flexible rule architecture enable automated or guided bi-directional changes of design components and pieces, which power overall change management.
The solution offers the ability to start CAD, a Standalone lifecycle viewer, or other tools for carrying out validation, analysis, and problem-solving since Design and EBOM are housed in a single PLM system. This makes it possible for EBOM-driven DMU, which concentrates solely on buildable configuration and expedites the validation and verification process overall. Accenture’s strategy and advisory services, together with the design and development of contextualized solutions based on comparable complex project delivery experiences across various customers, serve as a complement to Siemens’ offering.
In conclusion, an organized maturity of several engineering domains—electronic, mechanical, software, and electrical—is needed as goods become smarter and more linked under a system of systems approach. The only way to do this is to separate EBOM from design. To get around the problems with human interventions, system-driven authoring and alignment between two distinct structures is required. Each domain can have a role-based user interface (UI) to arrange and allocate certain attributes and actions to design components and parts by keeping both forms of BOM in one system.
In a world where product complexity will continue to grow, the decoupling of Design and EBOM is a strategic imperative, and the Siemens and Accenture solution offers a comprehensive approach and solution to address this challenge, enabling organizations to unlock the full potential of their digital product definition management.
Accenture is a top worldwide provider of professional services, working with the most successful corporations, governments, and other organizations to develop their digital core, streamline their operations, boost revenue growth, and improve citizen services—all while generating real value quickly and efficiently. Our organization, which employs 738,000 people and serves clients in over 120 countries, is driven by talent and innovation. Today, technology is the driving force behind change, and with our robust ecosystem links, we are among the global leaders in assisting in its advancement.
We combine our technological prowess with unparalleled functional, industry, and worldwide delivery knowledge. Because of our extensive portfolio of services, products, and resources spanning Strategy & Consulting, Technology, Operations, Industry X, and Accenture Song, we are ideally positioned to produce measurable results. These skills, along with our shared success culture and dedication to generating 360 degree value, allow us to support our customers’ success and establish enduring, reliable connections. Our success is determined by the total value we generate for our communities, partners, shareholders, clients, and each other.
