We currently make extensive use of the configurator. For a given configured item, all parts/components are entered via the Engineering Workbench, then included/excluded via Keep When rules in the configurator.
We’ve recently tested an alternative to this process which does not require the corresponding part to be entered on the part material list (in Engineering Workbench).
Instead, we’re using a Set Field rule to update the JobMtl.PartNum field to a given part number based upon if/then parameters. For example: If Option1 = True and Option2 = False then Set Field JobMtl.PartNum = “12345”. A subsequent “Rule Function” rule type with a "Get Part Defaults’ parameter then goes to the Part table to fill in the description, etc. of that part in the material list.
In testing it works and populates the job material list successfully.
We’re looking for feedback on any long term drawbacks.
The most obvious drawback we see is if that part 12345 (in example above) is deactivated in the Part table, there’s not an easy way to find that in the configurator rules without an involved search.
Thank you for the response. Can you clarify your last statement of “so if there is a possibility of 6 parts on the configured bom…you need to keep 6 parts on the engineering bom to support it”?
Do you mean we have to have at least one engineering BOM part to call out for each “template BOM” rule?
For example the part number in the engineering BOM may be 45678, but we may be using many Set Field rules to determine what part actually ends up in that Mtl Sequence “spot” from the engineering BOM?
yes, you keep a PLACEHOLDER part on the engineerieng BOM - and then use the method rules/set field to change the actual part that is called for on the resulting configuration bom. …
I built the BOM for the base part to have 1 material for each final component For example: The final part is an extension cord with various choices (wire gauge, Insulation, color,) for the main cord
Base part BOM
The configurator then changes the P/N and Qty for Seq 20 based on the inputs.
I also always make base Qty 1.
Drawback’s I’ve found:
Can’t do a Mass Replace
Have to edit code. Ours was exceptionally difficult, as we used lookup function with CVS files to choose the Part. And we dynamically built the description based on the Inputs.
Possible Qty issues if the alternate parts have differing UOM
I’m actually rebuilding our configurators and will be going back to using “Super BOMs” (wher the BOM includes every single component that might be used), and using the Keep When method
I agree with you that templated bills lack a certain, let’s say, engineering control.
However, with Server-Side functions, you can get to a better place. For example, you can check the part number found in a lookup table to see if it is valid (active, correct version, etc).
If your product line lends itself to a super-BOM (not too many options) then by all means do so. If the combination of options gets too big, you’ll be disappointed in the amount of time you’ll be spending in the Engineering WB.
I am not sure if this has been brought up or not, but one thing that we found with using our placeholders is that our “Where Used” report is very inaccurate. Because the part on the configurator is really a place holder our where used report does not know that the part was included with the configurator. It may be different in 10 becasue we are on 9.05, but I just wanted to give the heads up.
That is a very good point Tracie. I also found it helpful to have a Where-Used on Job materials as well as Engineering records since we wanted to know about jobs on the floor when doing a where-used. Easy dashboard to do - and maybe a standard command now as well.
Also … i’ve experienced that
your REPLACEMENT parts for the PLACEHOLDER parts
MUST have a common UOM value.
Most be that the UOMs are contained with the same UOM CLASS
E.g. You cannot replace a EA part / Class Count for a LB part / Class Weight.
but can replace a EA part / Class Count for a BX part / Class Class.
