yang686526

any have any perfect part numbering systems?
my group at work has been given the job of coming up with a new part numbering scheme so we can more closely align activities between a few of our divisions.
at the moment the two main sites both have their own 鈥榮mart鈥?numbering scheme.
also every part used has to have a company number assigned. not just parts for which there are drawings but also hardware etc. (don鈥檛 get me started)
we buy in a lot of components but historically they haven鈥檛 created scd/vcd etc for most of these although we鈥檙e thinking maybe they should.
our first idea was essentially a dumb, sequential numbering scheme for all drawings, with maybe some kind of smart scheme for the standard hardware.
we鈥檝e been told by materials that we need to maintain some smartness because they find it helpful.
anyone have any good examples of numbering schemes they鈥檇 like to share?
find a job or post a job opening
smart numbering systems don't work. invovaton and development will cause you do develope something you didn't consider and therefore won't fit within the smart numbering system.
completely insignificant part numbering systems pose the issue, as you state, that no one can look at the number and know - even generally - what the part is.
semisignificant parts are the only way to go. without knowing you product lines, i can't help device one via eng-tips. contact me privately if you want to delve into some deep ideas.
we kind of got landed this by configuration management so don't worry, they wont be forgotten!
thanks for the input.
scott's advice is good; limit any significant digits. kiss.
i agree with scott. (except for some spelling errors)
chris
systems analyst, i.s.
solidworks 06 4.1/pdmworks 06
autocad 06
kenat,
i agree with scott too.
my experience with intelligent numbers consists of watching non-technical clerks input the data in a panic rush. there were lot of errors. the original classication system was not very good anyway.
consider what happens when your resistor gets classifed as a screw. the number gets all over boms and purchase requisitions and configuration management refuses to change it. your intelligence ceases to be intelligent.
any classification of parts should be a database field separate from the part number. this allows you to correct mistakes, and otherwise change classifications as you re-orgainize your system.
jhg
our system uses a thre part numbering system which seems to work well 90% of the time.
we use a 2 or 3 digit prefix to identify the item category
then we assign an arbitrary 6 digit number to the part
then we have a 3 digit version number at the end.
we then will have a revision associated with each part.
it looks like this xxx-xxxxxx-xxx rev.a
it can be confusing when you first start out and like swertel said innovation and unforseen component categories have caused us a few problems as well as engineers that have a different idea of how a part should be classified, but all in all it works. something similar may work for you.
i suggest using a pdm software and remove "rev.a". it would make it much easier and more efficient to work with the files.
chris
systems analyst, i.s.
solidworks 06 4.1/pdmworks 06
autocad 06
thanks everyone for your input.
just to make it clear, with the exception of possibly hardware most of my team would prefer a dumb numbering system.
however, our 'customers' in materials (purchasing), and probably other areas once they see our proposals, want some smartness.
we're proposing something like xx-yyyyyy where xx is the 'smart' category and yyyyyy is just a unique identifier (not sure yet if it will be totally unique or just unique to that category).
we don't want to identify by project or our product line because so many times a part is used several places over time.
what purchasing wants though is categories which correspond to individual purchasers/supplier specialties. so break down between machined metallic, machined non metallic and sheet metal (our 3 main areas, not much casting or forging or moldings etc). obviously though changing/options in manufacturing methods can mess this up.
for drawings there will be a rev number, the pdm system we're looking at does put it in the file name (as best we know).
drawoh, we regularly see the problems you mention, part of the reason for us preferring dumb.
we also thought our new erp system sap (stops all production) would be able to handle the categorization but seems we were over optimistic.
there鈥檚 probably more i could add but i鈥檝e already taken up plenty of your valuable time. any ideas or input is appreciated though.
aardvarkdw,
revision and version numbers should not be included in part numbers. when you allow this, you imply that i can check out drawings and make changes to form fit and function. if you use the same part in several places, i can create a serious mess.
you should note drawing revision numbers on your purchase and work orders. this provides a history of what you did on any given day. this should not be in your database.
jhg
basically what we have as part of our eco process is that if there is a change of 'function form or fit' and the part isn't 'backward interchangeable' then it gets a new part number. (i think in mil std stuff it comes down to class 1 2 etc) to keep the same number and just change rev it has to be backward compatible.
from my experience rev (or issue in the uk) isn't intrinsically part of the drawing/part number as such, it is an additional identifier.
obviously having one assembly that requires rev b and one that requires rev c is a bad idea.