Hi Dale, Sun, 8 Jun 2014 10:54:49 -0700 (PDT) Dale Scott <[email protected]>: >What naming conventions are you using for Products and BoMs? >It seems there is no required relationship between the name of a >Product and the name of a BoM for that product. yes, no relationship based on names. Its based on internal ids.
>It seems some >convention is needed for things to be clear for users, especially if >searching for a BoM for a particular product. yes, if you like a semantic connection between product and recipe. >The first strategy I came up with is something like: >Product: "ASSY,FIELD SPARES,AIRCRAFT WIRELESS" >Code: "60000001" (we have a long-established 8-digit internal part >number) >BoM Name: "60000001-01" (e.g. rev 01 of BoM for product code 60000001) >Have you come up with a convention that is working for you? your convention sounds reasonable to me. A customer uses something similar, but based on product name == BOM name. They have the case to be able to order a product instead of producing it. The internal product code is other than the suppliers codes. So they base their naming scheme on names instead of codes. I would prefer a naming convention based on codes, as you suggest. Because names may change over time, codes should not. The revision suffix is IMHO only needed, when you may have more then one recipe (BOM) per product, or when your recipes changes over time. Cheers Udo -- _____________________________ virtual things Preisler & Spallek GbR München - Aachen Windeckstr. 77 81375 München Tel: +49 (89) 710 481 55 Fax: +49 (89) 710 481 56 [email protected] http://www.virtual-things.biz
