Product Hierarchy Structuring

The architecture of a product is what gives it SOUL. Its hierarchy is what gives it structure. But too often, we build without a map. Without asking: What holds this together? What is this really made of? Not just "what features should we build"— But deeper questions like: • Are we building one product or many? • What is at the core of this thing? • What doesn't belong here? • What gives this system motion and meaning? After building for years — products, platforms, ecosystems — I began to notice a recurring internal structure. A pattern that helped me move faster, decide better, and stay true to the essence of what I was building. I call it the CAPE Framework. It’s not theory. It’s muscle memory. A compass for product architecture and product decisions. CAPE = Core → Abstraction → Peripheral → Elegance 🔵 Core (the primitive) Every product must have one clear, singular core. The primitive. The thing everything else rotates around. > A task. A file. A block. A post. A payment. This is not a concept. It’s a foundation. If you have multiple cores, you don’t have a product — you have confusion. A strong product starts with one honest, indivisible primitive. 🟡 Abstractions Once the core is defined, abstractions layer on top. These help organize and extend the core. > folders, collections, views, tags. Too many abstractions and you create a maze. Just enough — and you give users structure without friction. The best abstractions simplify, not obscure. They reveal the core. 🟢 Peripherals These are your tools, actions, workflows — everything orbiting the system. > APIs, automations, triggers, integrations. They move the system forward, but they are not the system itself. They exist to interact with abstractions and drive progress. ⚪ Elegance And finally, the layer that matters most to the human mind — elegance. > layouts, transitions, typography, defaults. It’s how the core is felt. How abstractions are understood. How peripherals are discovered, not dumped. Elegance isn’t decoration. It’s expression. Over time, I’ve realized: Great products aren’t just functional. They’re architected. One strong core. Minimal, meaningful abstractions. Peripherals with purpose. And elegance woven through it all. That’s what CAPE brings me. It’s how I think. It’s how I build. Would love to hear how you architect your products. What’s your product thinking?

𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐬 (𝐁𝐎𝐌)🎯 A Bill of Materials (BOM) is the backbone of any manufacturing or product development process. It’s a detailed list of components, raw materials, and subassemblies required to build a product. Think of it as a recipe—without it, production can face costly errors and inefficiencies. ➤Types of BOMs by Structure: - Single-Level BOM – A straightforward list of parts needed for a product. - Multi-Level BOM – A hierarchical structure showing relationships between components, subassemblies, and final products. ➤Types of BOMs: -Manufacturing BOM (MBOM) – Includes all materials, assemblies, and instructions for production. -Engineering BOM (EBOM) – Created during product design and includes specifications and CAD drawings. -Sales BOM (SBOM) – Defines products as sold, including optional configurations. -Service BOM – Details parts needed for product maintenance and repairs. -Production BOM -Template BOM -Single level BOM -Multi-level BOM ➤Key Elements of a BOM: ✅ Part Number & Name – Unique identifiers for each component. ✅ Quantity – The number of each part required. ✅ Unit of Measure – Defines how materials are counted ✅ Description & Specifications – Provides clarity on components. ✅ Procurement Type – Defines if parts are purchased or manufactured. ✅ Lead Time & Supplier Details – Helps with supply chain planning. ➤10 Steps to Create an Effective BOM: 1️⃣ Define the product structure. 2️⃣ Assign unique part numbers. 3️⃣ List all components with accurate details. 4️⃣ Specify quantities. 5️⃣ Categorize materials (raw, subassemblies, etc.). 6️⃣ Establish procurement methods. 7️⃣ Include engineering & manufacturing instructions. 8️⃣ Track revisions & changes. 9️⃣ Validate BOM with stakeholders. 🔟 Integrate BOM into ERP/PLM systems. 🔥 Key Tips for Implementing BOM: 🔹 Standardize naming conventions & formats. 🔹 Use a centralized system to prevent duplication. 🔹 Ensure cross-functional collaboration between design, production, and procurement teams. 🔹 Regularly update and audit BOMs to reflect changes. 💡 Benefits of Effective BOM Management: ✔ Reduces errors & production delays. ✔ Improves cost estimation & procurement efficiency. ✔ Enhances product quality & regulatory compliance. ✔ Enables seamless collaboration across teams. 📢 Are you using BOMs effectively in your organization? What challenges have you faced? Share your thoughts in the comments! 👇 ========== 🔔 Consider following me at Govind Tiwari,PhD #BillOfMaterials #Manufacturing #ProductDevelopment #SupplyChain #ERP #Engineering #PLM #quality #iso9001 #qms

The product structure with its process-driven characteristics is a core element of product data.   Creating and managing the product structure is a key requirement for the data model of Product Data Management (PDM) and across systems for Product Lifecycle Management (PLM).   In order to always have a consistent parts list available, an “integral product structure” construct should be used centrally (in the PDM solution). All process-related product structures from engineering, planning, production and service can be incorporated into this construct and filtered as a view based on requirements. From this, the required parts lists (E(ngineering)BOM, P(lanning)BOM, M(anufacturing)BOM, S(ervice)BOM and so on) can be derived at any time.   Development and work planning are technical tasks and are supported by the PDM solution. Here users can directly access the corresponding product structures respectively parts lists. By incorporating pre-stage parts (raw parts and semi-finished products), alternative parts and structural changes, work planning derives the product structure „As Planned“ (PBOM) from the product structure „As designed“ (EBOM).   Procurement and production planning are dispositive tasks and are supported by the ERP solution. The product structure “As Built” (MBOM) is created from the product structure “As Planned” via an application portal by ERP users when creating production orders, with alternative parts being determined using PDM web services. Through an application portal, MES users then have access to the relevant MBOMs in PDM via the production orders in ERP.   PDM, ERP and MES web services can be used simultaneously via BPM-based application portals. This allows product structures respectively parts lists to be managed centrally and used decentrally.   Note: Alternative parts can be components such as adhesives, stepping motors, hydraulic units, etc. from different manufacturers with identical properties. Structural changes can occur through the dissolution of functional assemblies or the creation of dummy assemblies.   For a customer product, changes to the “As Built” product structure resulting from service work should be mapped to the “As Maintained” (SBOM) product structure. This can again be done directly in the PDM solution. In case of modifying or modernizing the customer product, development and design can access the current state of the product as it is at the customer’s site.   The lifecycle management of product structures/BOMs can only be carried out reliably at a central location, in the PDM solution. Since real Product Lifecycle Management requires PDM, ERP, MES and possibly other business applications, a possibility must be created to set up and manage the “integral product structure” construct centrally and to use it decentrally in a process-driven manner.   #PDM #ERP #MES #PLM #ProductStructure #BOM #PartsList #ProductDataModel

One of the most underrated and misunderstood challenges is this: How do you organize your data in a way that actually makes sense to your business? Organizing manufacturing process data is harder than expected, especially when trying to use a single hierarchy. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐭𝐲? Different functions needed different views: ⇨ Maintenance teams want to see asset types across sites. ⇨ Process engineers care about production lines. ⇨ Environmental, quality, inventory teams all have their own lenses. One tank could belong in 10 different contexts. A single, rigid hierarchy couldn’t meet all needs. Instead of “one hierarchy to rule them all,” you could build multiple hierarchies, grounded in ISA-88 and ISA-95 standards. Each supported a different business function or analytical use case. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡? ⇨ Define the business problems and analytics needs first. ⇨ Build flexible, layered hierarchies using a platform of your choice. ⇨ Allow assets and tags to be referenced in multiple contexts. The result is that every use case fits into an existing structure without major rework needed. It may take long, but it enables scale, clarity, and speed later. This is the approach that Jonathan Alexander and his team took. Watch the video below to learn more.