Our company is such that we design equipment and have external contractors manufacture it. Due to this it is very important that the revision of parts and assemblies is correct and communicated clearly to reduce chance of error during manufacturing.
In the past our company has followed the process that when a part is revised, two assemblies above the part are revised also. This means that any assemblies above (some of our assemblies may have 6 or 7 layers) are not changed.
Since implementing PDM early last year, this method has been up for debate and we still have not got a decisive, effective way of revising assemblies that works well with PDM.
We would like our manufacturers to access our vault and so would have access to the BOM in explorer, this shows revisions, which is great. We also thought about having this in the BoM in each drawing which offers the same behaviour. However following the previous revision scheme means that subassembly BoMs can get out of sync. E.g Part X, Assembly X and Assembly Y are revised to Revision B. Assembly Z which references Assembly Y, still shows on the BoM that it uses Assembly Y - Revision A. This means that we would practically have to revise each and every assembly above a part for even a minor change.
A version update of a released assembly might be a better way to get this BoM to update, however this would complicate the workflow, as we would have to be careful what files we update, vs what get sent through the revision process.
Does anyone deal with this in a different way or have any smart tips to align the revisions listed in assembly BoMs?