At Poly Electronics, we work with customers across a wide range of industries and program types—from early-stage NPI builds to full production transfers. Last month alone, our engineering and supply-chain teams reviewed ten customer Bills of Materials (BOMs).
Different products. Different volumes. Different stages of development.
Yet the same themes kept appearing.
None of these findings are unusual. In fact, they’re common across electronics programs of all sizes. The challenge is that many of these risks don’t become visible until production is underway—when timelines are tight and changes are costly.
Here’s what we’re seeing most often.
1. Single-Source Components Create Hidden Risk
Nearly every BOM we reviewed included at least one critical component with a single approved source. Sometimes this was intentional; other times it simply hadn’t been revisited since the initial design phase.
While single-source components don’t always cause immediate issues, they limit flexibility when market conditions shift.
Why it matters:
When availability tightens, single-source parts reduce leverage on pricing, lead times, and allocation—often at the worst possible time.
2. End-of-Life Exposure Is Often Overlooked
Several BOMs contained components that were already approaching Last Time Buy (LTB) or were no longer recommended for new designs. In many cases, the design itself was sound—the lifecycle risk just hadn’t been reassessed recently.
Why it matters:
EOL components rarely block early builds. They tend to surface as serious issues when programs are ramping or transitioning into sustained production.
3. Lead-Time Assumptions Don’t Always Match Reality
We continue to see BOMs built around lead-time assumptions that are either outdated or overly optimistic relative to today’s supply-chain environment.
Why it matters:
Schedules slip not because teams ignore lead times—but because assumptions aren’t refreshed as market conditions change.
4. Cost Is Often Concentrated in a Few Key Line Items
In multiple BOMs, a small subset of components accounted for a significant portion of the overall material cost. While this isn’t inherently problematic, it frequently goes unnoticed.
Why it matters:
Understanding where cost is concentrated allows teams to focus optimization efforts where they will have the greatest impact.
5. BOM Data Gaps Slow Down Execution
We commonly encounter BOMs with:
- Missing or inconsistent manufacturer part numbers
- Incomplete descriptions
- Notes and revisions tracked outside the BOM itself
Individually, these issues seem minor. Collectively, they slow quoting, sourcing, and execution.
Why it matters:
Clean, complete BOM data early helps prevent delays and confusion later—especially as volumes increase.
6. Limited DFM Consideration During BOM Development
Many BOMs are technically correct but not fully optimized for manufacturing. Examples include component selections that complicate assembly, testing, or inspection.
Why it matters:
Design-for-Manufacturing challenges rarely appear during initial builds. They become more visible—and more expensive—during scale-up.
What These Findings Have in Common
These issues aren’t the result of poor design or lack of effort. They’re a natural byproduct of fast-moving development cycles and evolving supply-chain conditions.
At Poly Electronics, we’ve found that the most successful programs are those that:
- Revisit BOMs early and often
- Validate assumptions with manufacturing and supply-chain input
- Treat BOM reviews as a proactive risk-reduction step—not a formality
A Simple Takeaway
If it’s been some time since your BOM was reviewed through a production and supply-chain lens, there’s a strong chance hidden risk—and opportunity—exists within it.
A second set of eyes early can help prevent costly changes later.
If you’re interested in learning more about what Poly Electronics is seeing across today’s electronics programs, we’re always happy to share insights and best practices.
