For me a product is the result of making something, although this can itself be a component part of another product. For example, a tyre manufacturer's product is a tyre but to a car manufacturer a tyre is but one of thousands of components.

what's the difference between "Part" and "Part Product", etc ?

personally i'd go with
Raw Material, Part (or Detail), Sub-ass'y, ass'y (this should IMO refer to the top level assembly)

and like graham says one company's ass'y can be another's raw material.

and, btw, somethings are impossible !?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Are "product" and "component" equivalent? No. But it is possible for a product to be a component.

It all depends on content.

In general a "product" is what a company offers for sale.

For a steel mill: Raw material = iron ore. Product = steel plate.

For a fabricator: Raw material = steel plate (purchased from the steel mill). Product = cut, formed, welded etc. steel something. This steel something might be one component in a locomotive.

The locomotive builder might purchase several different steel somethings from the fabricator. When bolted together they might become engine bay sub-assembly for the locomotive.

There is no hard-and-fast definition.

I agree with MintJulep --

I think a product is what leaves the factory in return for money from a customer. It might be a component of the customer's product after that, but it was my product when I sold it.

Best to you,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

My understanding is that as many of you have said; a product is the final object that is being produced being an assembly or a single part. A part on the other hand is a single object that might be a component in a product. We here refer to the part with a part number, so a component is a part before it is a component.

We do measurement reports on parts in their own merit but than you do a measurement report on the product in which you check the function of all the components in the assembly context.

A sub-assembly is more of a process dependent jargon. If a bunch of components are assembled together and than all this is assembled again, the previous would be a sub-assembly in the latter.

Excluding mathematical issues concerning the term product, one simple definition could be: items or goods made by an industrial firm, in short: business's output, its proceeds, returns, yield, outcome, even harvest and fruits. Chemical engineers may also call product a material that has passed through a processing operation, aka effluent, discharge liquor, etc.

As for component, again disregarding mathematical and electrical connotations, it could be considered a constituent part of a system, e.g., a part of a mixture, an ingredient.

"so a component is a part before it is a component." ... ?

IMO, "component" is a word that can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean. "part" is a well understood engineering term, so to is "sub-ass'y" and "ass'y". You can call the final output of your process a "product" ... personally, I hate that term, it makes me think you don't know what you're making, so you substitute a generic term "product".

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Quote (what's the difference between "Part" and "Part Product", etc ?)

This term comes from DS CATIA.
"Part Product" is a Product that consists of only one part.
The need for "Part Products" comes from the fact that in CATIA a Product is a "Collection of Products".

-GEL
Imposible is nothing.

In NX, 'Components' are what an 'Assembly' is made up of, and these 'Components' could themselves be 'sub-assemblies'. Colloquially we use the term 'Piece Part' to designate the smallest representation of an indivisible object. Whereas the term 'Part' is used to indicate a file produced by NX, which could be either a single 'Component' (or 'Piece Part') or an 'Assembly' or 'sub-assembly'.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

"This term comes from DS CATIA." ... ah yes, CATIA uses "product" in the same way as everyone else uses "drawing" (i guess CATIA's product is drawings), and they might also use "component product" in the same way as we'd use "s/ass'y drwg".

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Quote (CATIA uses "product" in the same way as everyone else uses "drawing" (i guess CATIA's product is drawings))

In CATIA Object Model:
-a Product is a "Collection of Products".
-a Drawing is a "Collection of 2D Views of a Part or Product".
-Product and Drawing are different object classes(types)

-GEL
Imposible is nothing.

GELFS,

When you write manuals and technical articles, you need to use terminology with far greater precision than you would in regular conversation. For fun sometimes, search Eng-tips for discussions about bolts versus screws.

The subject of Catia has been brought up. Does whatever article you are reading contain a glossary?

--
JHG

GELFS,

is the basic question how to relate CATIA terminology to general usage, or technical usage for building assembly trees ?

as far as i know (which isn't very far) CATIA doesn't use the terms sub-part, sub-component, or even component. i thought their terms were part (CATPart) and product (CATProduct).

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Hello Rd1975,

My question is about what is the right terminology, if exists, for Product Structure (or as you call it Assembly Tree)

-GEL
Imposible is nothing.

I believe 'Product Structure' is getting some wide use since Teamcenter (our PDM/PLM product offering) uses this terminology and besides, it's the most widely deployed PDM product in the industry so I guess that counts for something

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

From the perspective of a cycle which begin as an initiative to produce something (A) and end as a deliverable for producing welfare or economic benefit (B).

Product is located at the end of the process (B).
Component is somewhere in the ongoing process between (A and B).

Component does not produce welfare or economic benefit (B) - directly.

No reliable source behind... just a personal perspective.

"component" is often used to refer to something less than the full assembly. a "component test" would be the test of a major substructure, like a Horizontal tailplane or a Flap.

a reasonable product structure would be ...
1) GA ... the top assembly, the final product (if you will),
2) this is comprised of sub-assemblies ... you might say that a major sub-assembly is a collection of minor sub-asseblies, you could include a level called "component" to avoid using the term "sub-assembly" repeatedly.
3) at the bottom of it all are detail parts.

so it could look like GA < major component < component < major sub-assembly < sub-assembly < part.

now this of course doesn't mean that there are only 6 levels in the GA product structure.

you might look into project management for better definition.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati