We’re architecting a global variant management strategy for a multi-site deployment across 8 manufacturing locations. Each site creates local variants of base designs, and we need to consolidate them for global visibility and compliance reporting. We’re debating between BOM sync and BOM merge approaches in tc-12.4.
BOM sync seems cleaner - maintaining separate BOM structures per site with periodic synchronization to a master. BOM merge would combine variants into a single structure with configuration rules. Our concern is scale - we’re looking at 50,000+ part assemblies with 200-300 variants per product family. Performance with large assemblies is critical since engineering needs real-time access. We also have strict compliance and audit requirements that demand complete traceability of changes across all variants. What are the real-world trade-offs? Has anyone implemented either approach at this scale?
I’d lean toward BOM merge with proper variant configuration. The sync approach creates data silos that make global analysis difficult. With merge, you get a single source of truth and variant rules handle the differences. Yes, the structure gets complex, but tc-12.4’s configuration engine handles it well. We run assemblies with 400+ variants and query performance is acceptable with proper indexing. The audit trail is also cleaner - all changes are in one structure.
Effectivity definitely scales but you need to architect it carefully. Use site-based variant expressions combined with date effectivity. Each site gets a variant family with rules that filter their valid configurations. The performance hit comes from evaluation - every BOM traversal checks all rules. We optimized by caching variant expressions and pre-computing common configurations. Load times dropped from 15 seconds to 3-4 seconds for our largest assemblies after tuning.
From a manufacturing perspective, BOM sync is problematic for compliance. We need to prove that a specific variant configuration matches regulatory submissions. With synced BOMs across sites, tracking which version was active when becomes complex. Merge gives you point-in-time snapshots that are easier to validate. The performance concern is real though - we’ve seen 10-15 second load times on large merged assemblies.
We implemented BOM sync for a similar scale deployment last year - 6 sites, about 35,000 assemblies. The key advantage is isolation - each site works independently and sync happens on schedule. Performance stays good because you’re not loading massive merged structures. The downside is synchronization conflicts. When multiple sites modify the same base component, resolving conflicts manually becomes a bottleneck. We have a dedicated team handling sync exceptions.
The compliance angle is important - we have FDA and ISO audits quarterly. How do you handle configuration effectivity with BOM merge? If Site A’s variant differs from Site B’s for the same base product, how do you ensure each site only sees their valid configuration? Does tc-12.4’s effectivity engine scale to hundreds of variant rules per assembly?