A few month ago, after the last “Back to Basics” conference in Paris, organised by the PLMLab association, I wrote an article about my thought on the change impact on revision numbering. This article is written in french so you may want to read the english version, translated by google, to get my point. But if the translation is not good enough or if you simply don’t have time to read the all article here is what it was about.
During this conference, there were some discussions about when we should increment a revision and if a revision increment has to climb all the way to the top of the BOM and I strongly disagreed on the possibility to not propagate some changes in the whole structure. So, for those who worked in a PDM environnement you may have worked on defining what was the interchangeability of a part in a BOM. And as most of the users of the PDM were in the same environnement (for example R&D department) the interchangeability was defined has true or false for everybody. But now with PLM, you need to think about the fact that your implementation is much larger. So chances of complete inter-changeability becomes very very small because you’ll have differences in purchasing informations, cost, etc… which could have an important impact for some people who were not included in a former PDM implementation.
From these statements I proposed the following illustration showing that any change will always have an impact on a product version but visibility will be different depending of your interest.
That’s why I’ve started a poll with the following question: “Should a part modification impact revisions all the way to the top of the BOM ?” There were 50 answers with two thirds answering no. I wonder if after these explanation people would change their answer? Were they answering thinking of a PDM environment limited to R&D or because of other good reason that I’d love them to share?
Thanks for all the answers I’ll try to launch some more interesting polls to create such analysis after.