Talk:Bill of materials

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bill of materials article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Untitled[edit]

WHat is an ABC model? The wikilink given doesn't help any... Jaberwocky6669 21:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I've re-fettled the article and removed the ABC reference (which didn't make much sense in the context of a BOM. Admittedly I've written it from an engineering perspective, anyone with more manufacturing knowledge want to add anything? >>> Thedatastream 12:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I did a web search, and it seems that "Bill of materials" is as common as "Bill of Materials", so I propose we rename to the former (in keeping with general Wikipedia style). Noel (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, moving now. Noel (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill of Material (BOM) - A listing of all materials, components, subassemblies, and the quantity of each that comprise one assembled product, which may or may not have product structure. A bill of material can define products as they are designed, as they are manufactured, as they are ordered, as they are built, or as they are maintained. There are different types of bills of material dependent upon the disipline that generates them and the purpose for which they are intended. NOTE: It is important to ensure the type of bill of material that you have and its intended use prior to working with a bill of material.

I think it would be beneficial to have one directed to view;

Engineering Bill of material, Manufacturing Bill of material, Ordered Bill of material, As Built Bill of material, As Maintained Bill of material,

as they veiw the entry for Bill of material. Mshockle 17:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

is that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.64.10 (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

It's a bit of a mess. Mainly it consists of examples. It needs a decent rewrite getting rid of the school-masterish original research. This means quite a substantial cut in verbiage.

I may have a crack at it. I wrote a BoM system once in a weird programming language RPL11M Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a lot of clean up. It can likely be shortened a bit with some improvement wording and organization. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 07:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization[edit]

Has there been any attempt at standardization of BOMs? Given their prevalence, and the existence of ERP systems, I would expect that there would be business-to-business standardization to facilitate communication between partner companies, perhaps as a part of SAP, or some other de facto standard. In fact, it seems so obvious, that I would expect a format probably exists in XML, but I apparently don't know the right terminology to find it. 70.251.33.92 (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there have been attempts, but none have succeeded so far in the sense that they have reached a large potion of the market. So there are currently many problems with conversions. I believe PDX is currently one that uses XML. However, the paper "Common Data Model for Design Document Exchange in Business-to-Business Networks" by Jokinen, Borgman and Sulonen (2005) is rather critical about PDX: "6.1. Comparison with PDX standard We mapped the objects and attributes of our common data model to PDX standard IPC-2571 [6]. It was possible to describe our data model with this standard using only few user-defined (non-standard) attributes. The resulting document description in PDX format had, however, over 30 unnecessary attributes. Some of these attributes were compulsory in the PDX standard, but did not have a rational substitute in our model. This was mainly because PDX standard did not have objects, such as documents, that would correspond to our common data model, or objects in PDX standard and in the PDM systems were different from each other. This may cause unnecessary work and possible wrong mappings between the attributes of an internal data model and the common data model during implementation." Van der Hoorn (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the ERP/PLM/PDM realm there are different ways to approach BOMs. There are even different types of BOMs, such as Engineering BOMs, Manufacturing BOMs, as modelled BOMs. There are different ways to achieve these. In some software, they are completely different lists, sometimes called Named BOMs. In other software, they are all included in one single BOM that has different BOM views. ASME has Associated Lists standard, but it is fairly outdated these days, as there is often a debate as to whether or not one should put a BOM on the engineering drawing or rely soley on the PLM to store that information. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 07:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parts List[edit]

Is a BOM technically-speaking equivalent to a parts list? 70.251.33.92 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think often you can use parts list instead of a BOM. However (although I'm not sure), I think a BOM doesn't necessarily has to be a list of parts. I think it can also include images of the product or design. Van der Hoorn (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a BOM tech for a mid-sized manufacturer, and our BOMs are really much more than a parts list. They also include cad data, quality documents, work processes, tooling, and raw materials. Every time a part changes "fit, form, or function" it receives a new part number and a deeper level in the BOM. Each part is traced in the BOM to a purchased part; in the case of a screw, there would just be one level; in the case of something like a finished table leg, the part would level all the way down to raw steel coil. GreenGlass1972 (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.226.164.173 (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BOM example picture at the top of article should be in english[edit]

BOM should be in English so that people can see the type of materials, level of details, etc. The way it is right now its impossible for a person unfamiliar with a BOM to tell what's written on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazalc (talk • contribs) 21:31 & :32, 29 April 2014‎

Hmm. At the risk of being overly meticulous, i note the value of awareness that "English is spoken everywhere in the world, as long as it spoken loudly enough" and thus of taking care to say either

what they mean (in this case, apparently not "people", but "... the substantial fraction of English-readers for whom [the language of the image] is just another meaningless gibberish)", or

(better yet) something better informed, and more respectful of the vast en-WP clientele who are sophisticated enuf to be at least bilingual.

The project is an English 'pedia, not an Amurrikan one.
--Jerzy•t 17:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BOM cost[edit]

Several articles and news accounts (e.g. in connection with Project Ara) use this derivative term. My guess is that it reflects only manufacturer's cost, and that marketing options make its relationship to consumer cost wildly tenuous. IMO the distinction deserves some article mention.
--Jerzy•t 16:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Quantity synopsis parts list" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Quantity synopsis parts list and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#Quantity synopsis parts list until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]