Call For Sample Part Numbering System

[tlehnhaeuser]

Hello All,

 

We have a client that is starting a new company and needs to implement a part numbering system to incorporate into IronCAD's BOM Control. The design of their first vehicle is nearing completion and the need to start implementing some documentation control.

 

They are manufacturing Amphibious vehicles so it falls in line with systems found in either the automotive or marine industries.

 

If anyone has a system they are willing to share as a starting point for them, it would be greatly appreciated.

 

You can send any sample to me at tom@magnacad.com.

 

thanks

Tom

 

[mmccall]

Gov. systems... thats the ticket!!!

[tlehnhaeuser]

Gov. systems... thats the ticket!!!

11772[/snapback]

 

 

LOL!!!!

Thanks Max, But we want to keep the number under 150 characters

 

Oh BTW, You can Fax any samples to 631-980-3660.

Edited November 10, 2005 by tlehnhaeuser

[Guest EricFoy]

Suggestion:

 

The simpler, the better. Period.

 

I've been involved in the development of numerous part numbering schemes, and invariably you have several heads of several departments all vying to get some sort of coding built into the part number that suits their particular needs. The only common thread amongst the various opinions is that each one is equally assured that failing to comply with their requirements will result in all of the following:

 

1: No one will be able use the system because they won't know what a part is by looking at the part number.

 

2: No one will be able use the system because part numbers of similar parts won't be similar.

 

3: No one will be able use the system because similar part numbers will designate dissimilar parts.

 

4: No one will be able use the system because they won't be able to deduce the part number by looking at the part.

 

5: All order in the universe is at stake here, and the planets may fly out of orbit.

 

Now, while four of these five concerns may seem somewhat absurd, they really are what people are saying when you boil it all down. You have to just look 'em in the eye and say, "It's a number. Numbers are similar. They're all numbers."

 

So here's my bid:

 

Pick a number, start there, and count up. Set up a part number server to avoid duplicates. Problem solved. If you must, tack on a three digit prefix or suffix to designate a Project Code, Family Code, Place Code - call it what you want. Just be assured that the day will come when someone says, "Lets use this existing part on this new product." Thus we have Volkswagen Bug parts (code 111-) found on Volkswagen Squarebacks (code 113-).

 

All these extra codes can easily be managed by extra fields in the database. Sorted lists can be generated, families of parts can be managed, duplicate or multiple codes can be tolerated, and they can be changed when convenient. But the core part number should simply be a unique integer and nothing more.

 

That's my two cents' worth.

 

-Eric

[wgrein]

Exactly, it is just a number. Only 1 number per part. The file number, the part number & the spare parts number should all be the same.

Stay away from prefixes & suffixes. I use to work at a company that used the same number with different suffixes. 1000A, 1000B, 1000C & 1000D are all different parts, but a typo can cause significant problems for the production line or the customer waiting for the wrong spare part. Even if you use the number only once it can still cause problems. You start with an "A" size drawing, but later need to add more detail, so you either need to add an extra sheet or change to a "B" size drawing & then you must change the part number.

Start with at least a 5 digit number, and use only numbers, no letters. It is easier to just input numbers, than to have to mix numbers & letters.

You can try for a "smart numbering system" for standard purchased parts such as fasteners, clamps etc, but it can also cause problems. One option is say 12345-100, where the first 5 digits says what it is (eg M10 bolt, grade 10.9) & the numbers after the dash is the length (100mm long). This can cause confusion when dealing with metric & imperial bolts. Exceptions always occur & then the "smart numbering system" becomes dumb.

They should also look into a part naming system, so it is easy to search the database for similar parts, so you do not create a new part number for an existing part. If some pins are called "pins", some "cylinder pins" & some "30mm x 120 pin" it will be very frustrating & hard to avoid duplicate parts.

 

Wayne

[mmccall]

AHHH,...YES... alot of people don't like a "smart numbering" system..

 

But in this case.. the company has the advantage of needing a system.. they can make this new system whatever they want..

 

Correct.. whatever it is.. if it works for them, good...

 

I have worked with Gov numbering systems ( or smart numbering systems) for over 12 years.. across gov. and commercial companies... and with companies that just use series numbers..

 

Once the system or pattern is understood, Gov. smart numbering systems can give you a general "category" of what the part is by literally looking at the part number... if this is of any use then maybe it would work, but some effort has to be spent picking a "smart" or "coded" system that makes sense to the people in the company that will be working with the system...

 

It can be easily argued either way... outside my company, skies the limit, whatever system the customer uses, I use and learn. Within my company, we use smart numbering system for all parts we create and vendor numbers for parts we purchase... on gov contracts, we are commonly required to re-number to their gov system and put a note with the "suggested" vendor name and vendor number on the drawing...

 

But ... I have never had a problem with "smart or coded" numbering systems.. and they don't have to be long.. but it does take time to set the system up from the start... but hey.. I have some examples.. so the amount of effort can be evaluated from the start... maybe it will work .. maybe it wont.. either way, we learn something..

[tlehnhaeuser]

Thanks All for the feedback it all has valid points that I will present to the client. There appears 2 schools of thought on the subject.;

Smart Sytems and Simple System.

Since my client is considering both automotive and marine. I wonder what challenges awit them. When dealing with transportation, I would think there needs to be some sort of system in place that they must adhere to. I could be wrong, but we all seem a little in he darlk on the subject.

 

I personally like a blend of Smart and Simple where I think a number no more than 8 characters (left over from the old DOS days) is sufficient but each character or group of characters has a meaning. I agrre that dwg sizes be left out since you never know when they change. I'm a big fan of Dash numbers but can ultimately lead to very long numbers in this case.

 

Anyway, I appreciate the help and see what they come up with.