Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/921680
36 SMT007 MAGAZINE I JANUARY 2018 may show up different results. Any level of confusion about what is supposed to be there and what is not, is simply not an option in manufacturing. The management of individual variant BOMs therefore requires a very thor- ough team of engineers. The concept of configure to order reduces the number of individual BOMs that need to be managed, eliminating the confusion and risk associated with individual variant BOMs. The classic perception of configure to order is on a final assembly line, where products are being made according to individual customer spec- ifications, or, where there are defined sets of features that makes up a set of standard vari- ants. An example of this is common in the auto- motive industry, where on the final assem- bly line, for each base model of car, there are defined model variants, each adding a set of upgraded components such as engine, multi- media, lights, navigation system, etc., as well as individual choices that the customer has made, such as the color of the car. Production of the Ford Model T is a famous example of a non-flexible, automated mass-production line that achieved success by reducing costs and increasing productivity. Today's final assembly lines boast that they can produce flexibly on a non-stop, fixed-tact, final assembly line capable of making any combination of models, variants and individ- ual customer choices. While this implies 100% efficient production, it hides a great deal of associated waste, which is constantly having to be optimized behind the scenes. Without knowing what is to be made each day would require material availability to satisfy any quantity of any combination of any specifica- tion each day, representing a huge amount of material investment. Many of the optional components, especially the more expensive components, are likely to be rarely needed as compared to options lower in the range. It is a waste of invest- ment to have unnecessary stock at the line, so some logic and planning needs to be done to ensure that the materials are there only when needed. The suppliers of such optional materi- als, which today mostly feature complex elec- tronics sub-assemblies, would bear the brunt of the randomness of customer demand, and so face the very high volatility of demand on individual product variants that they supply. This can make their business very ineffi- cient. Some grouping therefore, especially for high-cost, rarely-used materials would reduce investment cost overheads, but only if the "random" production could also be grouped. The compromise of the flexible final assembly line then creates follow-on issues. The wait- ing list for a car to be manufactured after plac- ing an order with options, is quite significant. It can now take between 12 and 20 weeks for a specified car model to be scheduled, made and delivered from placement of a customer order. Many customers will not wait that long, and could go to competitors. The time is required by the car maker to optimize the supply-chain to minimize the risk of shortage of key compo- nents without incurring the need for material storage. By focusing on an efficient final assembly, the costs of variant manufacturing has not necessarily been avoided, but is more likely to have been shifted up the supply-chain. The challenge to produce on demand at a compet- itive price is spread amongst all the suppli- ers. The cost to the business for flexibility is still there, but accounted for in a different way. Though this example is related to a flexi- Today's final assembly lines boast that they can produce flexibly on a non-stop fixed tact final assembly line capable of making any combination of models, variants and individual customer choices.