Yes I've been trying to figure out the usefulness of a named BOM but it seems like it's more useful to just meticulously model the whole assembly as accurately as possbile. If you have stuff that is difficult to model, like solder, or glue, or other things that don't typically get modelled, it seems that "paste as reference" is the best method, making sure to include it on the BOM.
I've since changed my tune...I love them now.
Since you can easily compare named BOMs, they are great tools to submitting to the purchasing department. With them you can "trickle" release your assemblies, sending multiple BOMs over time, and they can compare the BOMs seeing what you have added/deleted from each release.
Purchasing can work on the BOM you sent them, showing only what you want ordered, and you can continue your design process knowing they aren't ordering anything you aren't ready.
Can you elaborate on a trickle release?
Also, what strategies do you use for keeping the BOM's up to date with the revisions since they don't sync the workflow as a part/assm moves through it?
Trickle release: Imagine you have an assembly that has some long lead items, you want to get those on order very early. You could send the named BOM through a workflow. Next you have a few more things on the BOM you want requisitioned. You can send version two of the BOM through containing the original long lead items plus a few more things. (The purchasing person can compare the BOMs to see what is new on this version two BOM)...and so on...
In this example, you don't keep the named BOMs in synch...you want them as they were so you have tractability over what you have ordered.
Though there are tools to synch them if you want.
We used this methodology Jeff. We call it preliminary BOM to get supply chain spooled up on long lead items and the workflow uses a prelim BOM REV structure.
Thanks for the confirmation that someone else out there is thinking along the same lines.
Retrieving data ...