Bill of Materials
Bill of Materials
(OP)
I have just started a new job and at all my previous jobs I have always used numbers for the items in the bill of materials. This new job is using letters and I am not sure on the letter designations. For example for the first item it will have PA in the item column. The item is made from plate material so the P stands for plate and the A is for the first plate item. Can anyone help me with what the letter designations will be for other material like pipe, square tube, flat bar etc.
Thanks
Peggles
Thanks
Peggles





RE: Bill of Materials
I would hope there was a company standard that defines this.
If not then maybe ask around, find out what they all mean/are and create one, so future employees don't have to ask the questions as often.
Perhaps seeing it written down may make them wonder if it's a good idea.
Current wisdom is that any type of smart numbering system has disadvantages and dumb numbering is best.
However this isn't part numbering as such if I understand you correctly so who knows.
RE: Bill of Materials
The company is a small one, I am the only one doing the drafting. The person who started this system is long gone and the boss wasnt sure as to all the material desisnations. I would rather use the number system but the person who does all the material ordering would like to stay with the current system. I was told that this was an old way of itemizing the material (I dont think it is company specific) and was hoping someone would know about it.
RE: Bill of Materials
Item numbers in a BOM or Parts List are quick references to components on a drawing or to the actual line of data in the BOM.
I believe the material ordering person (MOP) is an SOB full of BS. If he/she wants to stay with the current system, then put the onus squarely onto him/her to procure the list of designations to be used.
RE: Bill of Materials
Regards,
Mike
RE: Bill of Materials
If the MOP wants to stay with the mystery system, then he must have a reason. He needs to justify that reason, and educate whoever else needs to know the basis of the mystery.
RE: Bill of Materials
If I were you, I'd push for a non-significant numbering system. If you don't want to fight that battle, then I would check around with everyone that is currently familiar with this system, gather data, and write a standard or configuration sheet.
"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Bill of Materials
Chris
SolidWorks 06 5.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 02-10-07)
RE: Bill of Materials
This is why I agree with KENAT. An "intelligent" system definitely fails when everyone forgets how the intelligence worked. It usually fails when untrained people are bought in and they have to add stuff to the system in a panic rush, before they understand how it works.
If someone enters information incorrectly into a database field, you can go back and correct it. You can even re-think your database designations, and go back and fix everything accordingly. Once your "intelligent" item/part number is entered into the system and linked to stuff, your errors are permanent. What level of error are you willing to tolerate from a designation system?
JHG
RE: Bill of Materials
P.S., since this is the english engineering forum, let me just make one additional observation: It's Bill of Material, not Bill of Materials. If you are talking about more than one Bill, then it's Bills of Material. It's never Bill of Matierals or Bills of Materials. Unless one is talking about tools of a trade, the word material is its own plural. def: "the substance or substances of which a thing is made or composed"
Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
http://sw.fcsuper.com/index.php
RE: Bill of Materials
Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
http://sw.fcsuper.com/index.php
RE: Bill of Materials
I can't remember how I found it. It may have been a google search or, I did post questions about part numbering schemes both in Drafting Standards, GD&T & Tolerance Analysis & Engineering Configuration Management forums about 6 - 9 months ago so it may have been a link someone put.
The hard copy I have that I printed out is "Non-Significant, Self-Validated Part Identification Numbers" By G Harhalakis, M.E. Bohse, B.J. Davies ISR T.R. 86-15. It may be somewhere on http://www.isr.umd.edu (in fact I just found it http:
When I was looking I seem to recall others as well.
All this research was pointless though. My department and I were immediately overruled when we suggested a dumb scheme. In fact before I even had a chance to read the whole report I was overruled so don’t actually know how good it is.
I have a feeling the one it looks like we'll end up with is smart enough to cause problems but too dumb to offer significant usefulness. Oh well...
This is a little off topic though. If I understand correctly the OP was about item reference designation on parts list/BOM not actual part numbering, although I expect many of the same principles apply.
RE: Bill of Materials
Thanks again all.
RE: Bill of Materials
RE: Bill of Materials
I have concerns with the MOP having responsibility in creating said part numbers, in my experience, engineering should control all part numbers.
At times of component replacement I believe engineering have the knowledge and discipline to make the decision on "Drop in replacement" or new part number.
MOP people have a tendency to take the quick route (in my experience), any purchasers, planners, buyers out there, feel free to shoot me down.
RE: Bill of Materials