Community
Inventor Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Bill of Material Flattening with Parts Drawn in Inventor

19 REPLIES 19
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 20
austin.milster
1115 Views, 19 Replies

Bill of Material Flattening with Parts Drawn in Inventor

Hello,

 

We are trying to flatten out a Bill of Materials where the parts are drawn in Inventor.  We currently run off Dataflow for our planning and material requirements, and use both Inventor and AutoCAD for our part drawings.

On the plant floor, we have started using just-in-time principles to make our parts.  This has worked well in the physical environment regarding inventory reduction and increase to flow; however, we have created waste in other ways because each time we need a component our planner has to cut a work order for each sub-component prior to cutting one for the final product.  Additionally, our employees find themselves clocking in and out of this excessive amount of work orders which obviously is a waste of time.

When we asked our engineers to flatten our Bill of Materials by referencing the sub-component part numbers on our drawing, they said it would be a monumental task. We feel that referencing the sub-component parts in the drawing would account for the raw materials in the system, but also keep the planners from cutting excessive amounts work orders and plant employees from clocking in and out of these work orders.  The engineers said the reason making this change would be so huge is because the sub-component parts are drawn in Inventor.  Because of the intelligence imbedded in Inventor, this would cause the engineers to have to change these parts everywhere they are used, rather than just make an easy change to the drawings by referencing the parts. 

We have flattened Bills of Material in other areas, but it is because the sub-component parts to the final unit were either drawn in AutoCAD, (which doesn't hold the same intelligence/integration with our system as Inventor) or in other cases where the parts are drawn in Inventor, they have already been fabricated (usually they are buy parts). The issue we face in this particular circumstance is that the parts we are asking the engineers to reference are made directly from the raw material, so there isn't any part to actually reference in our system.  They said the inherent intelligence and integration with our system that Inventor has creates the need to change the sub-component part everywhere it is used plant-wide.

If anyone out there has some experience with this, and knows of a solution that doesn't require a massive effort on the part of the engineers to make this change it would be extremely helpful.

Thanks,

Austin

19 REPLIES 19
Message 2 of 20

Hi austin.milster,

 

I think there is a solution, but I'm not sure I follow your situation. Does this scenario sound right? or am I thinking too far down the BOM structure?

 

Scenario:

  • You have a manufactured part called 14-0530 that is made from a purchased part 10-0201, such as this:

 

Autodesk Inventor Bill of Material Flattening.png

 

  • So 14-0530 uses QTY: 0.5 of 10-0201 (or each 10-0201 produces QTY:2 of 14-0530)
  • And your engineering department creates an assembly (let's call it 13-0401) that uses QTY: 8 of 14-0530
  • But you want the work order for 13-0401 to show that 13-0401 uses QTY: 4 of 10-0201

If this is close to what you're after, it can be done. It might be done by creating some custom iProperties in the BOM editor and pushing them into the parts. And then creating an alternate Parts List style to see those custom iProperties, and then exporting the alternate Parts Lists from the drawings and importing to the ERP system.

 

However, you might be able to do this same thing in your ERP software.

 

So I think that it can be done, and it's not really all that painful, but a lot of the particulars are probably very specific to your data structure and internal setup.

 

I hope this helps.
Best of luck to you in all of your Inventor pursuits,
Curtis
http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com

Message 3 of 20
mcgyvr
in reply to: Curtis_Waguespack

yeah a few good example scenarios would help.

 

Inventor sadly really doesn't have a "proper" way to handle the raw material/qty for a part file.  but workarounds are out there.

 



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventor 2023 - Dell Precision 5570

Did you find this reply helpful ? If so please use the Accept Solution button below.
Maybe buy me a beer through Venmo @mcgyvr1269
Message 4 of 20

Thanks for the info Curtis.  This is a good start to what we're after.  I don't have a lot of experience with a lot of our systems here, but I"m sure there are folks who have been doing this a long time can take what you've said and get things started.

Message 5 of 20
austin.milster
in reply to: mcgyvr

Curtis's example is basically what we are after.  We have raw material (in his example it was part 10-0201) that we need to account for whenever we make a final assembly.  Currently, if we cut a work order for the final assembly (part 13-0401 in the example) we first have to cut a work order to turn our raw material (10-0201) into the sub-componenets (14-0530).  We are trying to eliminate the need to cut so many work orders for the sub-components, yet have the MRP system still account for our raw materials so that the proper messges will be received by our purchasing department when we hit our reorder points.

Message 6 of 20
mcgyvr
in reply to: austin.milster

In your ERP (and Inventor) simply make the 14-0530 component a "phantom" 

Then the raw material will be "pushed" up into the top level pick list and no separate work order will be required. 

 



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventor 2023 - Dell Precision 5570

Did you find this reply helpful ? If so please use the Accept Solution button below.
Maybe buy me a beer through Venmo @mcgyvr1269
Message 7 of 20
Curtis_Waguespack
in reply to: mcgyvr


@mcgyvr wrote:

In your ERP (and Inventor) simply make the 14-0530 component a "phantom" 

Then the raw material will be "pushed" up into the top level pick list and no separate work order will be required. 

 


Hi mcgyvr,

 

Setting the BOM structure for 14-0530 to phantom will work if 14-0530 is an assembly file. But if 14-0530 is a part file, then the phantom BOM structure will not work. I just wanted to clarify this point, as I did not make it well with my previous post.

 

In the cases where 14-0530 is a part file, and we want to pull from it the raw material QTY, we need to employ custom iProperties and alternate Parts List styles as mentioned.

 

I hope this helps.
Best of luck to you in all of your Inventor pursuits,
Curtis
http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com

Message 8 of 20

Hi austin.milster,

 

As mcgyvr mentioned, it is very likely there is a way to eliminate the 14-0530 component in the ERP system. Have you looked there for such an option?

 

If so, and the ERP software doesn't have a workable solution, then can you confirm that components you want to eliminate (such as 14-0530) are part files and not assembly files?

 

I hope this helps.
Best of luck to you in all of your Inventor pursuits,
Curtis
http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com

Message 9 of 20
mcgyvr
in reply to: Curtis_Waguespack


@Curtis_Waguespack wrote:

@mcgyvr wrote:

In your ERP (and Inventor) simply make the 14-0530 component a "phantom" 

Then the raw material will be "pushed" up into the top level pick list and no separate work order will be required. 

 


Hi mcgyvr,

 

Setting the BOM structure for 14-0530 to phantom will work if 14-0530 is an assembly file. But if 14-0530 is a part file, then the phantom BOM structure will not work. I just wanted to clarify this point, as I did not make it well with my previous post.

 

In the cases where 14-0530 is a part file, and we want to pull from it the raw material QTY, we need to employ custom iProperties and alternate Parts List styles as mentioned.

 

I hope this helps.
Best of luck to you in all of your Inventor pursuits,
Curtis
http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com


 

Yes. a part can't have a phantom structure.

But "if" your example is similar to his issues then its fairly easy to just create the "raw material" as a a strip of metal and then place it into a iam file and perform the cuts/holes to create the 14-0530 part. 

The other small problem is that you must have whole numbers in the boms. It would be nice if Inventor allowed "static" and non-whole numbers to be entered there. Then he could easily do "phantom" and have .5 for the quantity. 

 

 

To the OP.. Like I said, setting the subs to "phantom" in your ERP system is how you go about proceeding if you don't want to be required to create a work order for it. But it might bring up some other problems (like loss in visibility of the phantom part number in a pick list). But decent documentation/drawings from Inventor should sort that out. 

Of course there are also many times when its good to have the part NOT be phantom.. Mostly to allow you to maintain stock in that part as well as being able to consolidate work orders for it across multiple upper level work orders. But if you are simply creating these from scratch for each top level product then phantom is just fine. 

 



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventor 2023 - Dell Precision 5570

Did you find this reply helpful ? If so please use the Accept Solution button below.
Maybe buy me a beer through Venmo @mcgyvr1269
Message 10 of 20
Curtis_Waguespack
in reply to: mcgyvr

 


mcgyvr wrote:

Yes. a part can't have a phantom structure.


 

Hi mcgyvr,

 

Of course you are correct, a part can be made phantom, but doing that will not work to flatten the BOM to pull up the raw material part number.

 

As you said, you'd have to remodel the 14-0530 component as an assembly to get the phantom BOM structure designation to work in the scenario I put forth. However, since austin.milster originally said that the engineers were concerned about making "wholesale" changes that would cause a lot of re-working of the Inventor files, I think that an iProperties / Parts List workaround might be the "shortest putt". But again it really depends on the specifics of how there files are set up, and how the information makes it out of Inventor and into the ERP software, etc.

 

If I find time, I'll work up an example file set using the scenario I put forth before.

 

I hope this helps.
Best of luck to you in all of your Inventor pursuits,
Curtis
http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com

Message 11 of 20
mcgyvr
in reply to: Curtis_Waguespack

Really all that needs to be done is change the sub to phantom in the ERP system. The problem is the excessive job orders its creating.. not really how Inventor is/isn't handling it. 

This is one of those things Inventor doesn't really do properly and as such its just something the guys have to remember when entering info into the ERP system.

Then its a simple fix in the ERP and thats it. 



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventor 2023 - Dell Precision 5570

Did you find this reply helpful ? If so please use the Accept Solution button below.
Maybe buy me a beer through Venmo @mcgyvr1269
Message 12 of 20
Curtis_Waguespack
in reply to: mcgyvr


@mcgyvr wrote:

Then its a simple fix in the ERP and thats it. 


Hi mcgyvr,

It might be a simple fix where you are, but unfortunately that is not the case with all places and all ERP systems. I forget the particulars, but I've run into ERP systems and/or existing processes that wouldn't allow the collapsing of the BOM in the ERP without causing other problems.

 

But I completly agree with your point, that if at all possible this kind of thing should be done in the ERP system rather than in the engineering data.

 

I hope this helps.
Best of luck to you in all of your Inventor pursuits,
Curtis
http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com

Message 13 of 20
austin.milster
in reply to: mcgyvr

Thanks for the info.  As a follow-on question.  If we changed the sub parts to phantoms, would we need to ensure that the raw material is classified as an inseperable with the sub?

Message 14 of 20
mcgyvr
in reply to: austin.milster


@austin.milster wrote:

Thanks for the info.  As a follow-on question.  If we changed the sub parts to phantoms, would we need to ensure that the raw material is classified as an inseperable with the sub?


Don't see why you would need to. 



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventor 2023 - Dell Precision 5570

Did you find this reply helpful ? If so please use the Accept Solution button below.
Maybe buy me a beer through Venmo @mcgyvr1269
Message 15 of 20
austin.milster
in reply to: mcgyvr

All of our sub components in this particular case are part drawings rather than assemblies.  They are all parts made at our ironworker, and in many cases use the same raw material.  Each part only has one raw material and is made by cutting to length, punching, and bending (depending on the part, anywhere from one to all three of these steps are taken to turn the raw material into the part).

 

If I'm reading into the comments accurately, we would not be able to just change these parts to phantoms since they are not assemblies.  Am I on track with that?

 

If that's the case, you have mentioned changing the iproperties or alternate parts lists.  Would having multiple parts lists potentially pose any problems down the road?

Message 16 of 20
mcgyvr
in reply to: austin.milster

I think the limitations in Inventor have been made fairly clear here..

Now its going to come down to what you need to do at your company to work around them.

Curtis might have to step in with his suggested work-arounds.

but wait..

I thought these parts were internal and not made by an external vendor (ironworker)? or is this ironworker still an internal entity of your company?

I thought the whole problem was that work orders need to be created to make these parts and you want to get away from that. Personally if this "ironworker" is an outside vendor then you shouldn't have work orders anyways.. It should be purchase orders given to them. 

 

 



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventor 2023 - Dell Precision 5570

Did you find this reply helpful ? If so please use the Accept Solution button below.
Maybe buy me a beer through Venmo @mcgyvr1269
Message 17 of 20
austin.milster
in reply to: mcgyvr

Our ironworker is an internal operator, which is what causes us to currently get him the work orders to turn our raw material (in this case it's almost always different widths and thicknesses of flat bar stock) into the sub component parts.  I think the next step is to approach engineering with some of the insights you and Curtis have provided and see what the hang-up is and what our particular system does that would present challenges for us in other areas if we tried to make the change.  Thanks for the continued responses.

Message 18 of 20
mcgyvr
in reply to: austin.milster

So lets see if this is the right flow. (I'll make it simple)

You get an order for 

Sellthis1.iam

Its composed of 

ironbar1.ipt

circuitboard1.iam

 

In the current workflow a work order is created for 

#1-sellthis1.iam (with a pick list of ironbar1 and circuitboard1)

#2-ironbar1.ipt (with a pick list of flat bar)

#3-circuitboard1.iam (with its associated pick list)

 

And now the fact that 3 work orders are created is the problem.

So you just want to have a work order for

#1-sellthis1.iam

#2-circuitboard1.iam

 

Now

If you simply make ironbar1.ipt a "phantom sub" in your ERP system you will only get 2 work orders.

#1-a work order for sellthis1.iam (with a pick list of flat bar and circuitboard1)

#2-circuit board1.iam (with its pick list)

 

Now your "drawings" for sellthis1 will need to include the drawing (maybe on 1 sheet) so that the ironworker knows what he needs to make.

 

All of that is easily handled outside of Inventor with no changes to Inventor required. 

 

Now

"IF" you made flatbar a part and placed it into an assembly into Inventor and add cut/holes and save it as "ironbar1.iam" then you would simply make this "phantom" (in both ERP and Inventor) and then you would see "flat bar" in an exported bom.

 

What I'm saying there is that "IF" its a problem to not have "flat bar" called out in any Inventor BOMs then you will need to do something fancy to get it into Inventor.. Either by making ironbar1 into an assembly or some magic that Curtis might have.

 

But I still think that everything you need can just be handled outside of Inventor (in your ERP) and your problems are solved.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventor 2023 - Dell Precision 5570

Did you find this reply helpful ? If so please use the Accept Solution button below.
Maybe buy me a beer through Venmo @mcgyvr1269
Message 19 of 20
austin.milster
in reply to: mcgyvr

I like your solution.  I'm trying to get the folks with access to the ERP system to make a few of the changes similar to what you've mentioned (I can access the screens, but don't have authorizations to make any changes).  I'll let you know what they come up with based on your advice.

Message 20 of 20

Curtis and Mcgyvr,

 

Thanks to you both for helping me out with this solution.  After approaching the engineering department on a number of occasions and showing them some of the solutions you posted on here we never made much progress in getting their buy-in to make the changes we were asking for.  Ultimately, our planner worked in the ERP system and found a way to make the change we needed without needing any changes made on our drawings (we have an ancient system, and he had to mess with it for a while until he was able to figure out how to get it to do what we wanted).  So far, things are working out as we hope; if anything changes and we feel there is an Inventor/Autodesk change that needs to be made you will probably see me come back up on here in search of more help.

 

Again, we appreciate the time you took to post your responses, and I personally have gained some valuable knowledge about this sytem.

 

All the best,

 

Austin

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report