DESIGNERCOUNCIL Archives

June 2013

DesignerCouncil@IPC.ORG
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: Questioning the trend to use the schematic diagram as a Bill of material generation source
From:
Dave Schaefer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
(Designers Council Forum)
Date:
Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:56:10 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (12 lines) 
Adding to my earlier comment, the types of components I would include in my schematic that are not electrical in nature would be items that I want to output in my manufacturing or test data: tooling holes, fiducials, etc. Most mechanical components do not belong in the schematic but in the master BOM / product configuration.

My primary reason for not keeping the schematic as the master BOM is that this hampers proper PLM/CM. How do you properly reflect how a product is built with a single level schematic master BOM? Does a single level configuration ever  reflect how your product is built and allow you to track it's life cycle?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DesignerCouncil Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 16.0.
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF DesignerCouncil.
To temporarily stop/(restart) delivery of DesignerCouncil send: SET DesignerCouncil NOMAIL/(MAIL)
For additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2