Part Numbering System
Part Numbering System
(OP)
Ref:thread781-161093
We are in the process of reviewing our numbering systems and trying to determine which method to use. I have read thru the above thread which talks about significant and insignificant numbering systems. I was wondering if anyone has anything to add that might help us in making our decision.
We have operations in 3 different countries and we need to try to merge our systems to help streamline the operation. Only one of the 3 locations has a major database of Engineering drawings and it would be what I would consider as slightly significant in the numbering logic.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Regards
Jake
We are in the process of reviewing our numbering systems and trying to determine which method to use. I have read thru the above thread which talks about significant and insignificant numbering systems. I was wondering if anyone has anything to add that might help us in making our decision.
We have operations in 3 different countries and we need to try to merge our systems to help streamline the operation. Only one of the 3 locations has a major database of Engineering drawings and it would be what I would consider as slightly significant in the numbering logic.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Regards
Jake





RE: Part Numbering System
We came up with a scheme that was less smart than the current one at this site. down from over 100 categories to about 15 or so.
Still too smart for my liking.
It still isn't implemented as working the whole business unit together is a lower priority now, that and the person making the database quit and others were laid off. I don't know that it's going to happen anytime soon.
One of those threads I'm pretty sure references a report on smart numbers.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Part Numbering System
Regards
Jake
RE: Part Numbering System
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Part Numbering System
--Scott
http://wertel.eng.pro
RE: Part Numbering System
h
The short version:
Significant ("intelligent") part numbers were originally used for classification because "way back when" searching was labor-intensive & very expensive. However, you paid for the significance in terms of tainted categories, complex assignment rules, and inflexible data relationships.
Nowadays, if you use a product data management system for your part & document records, then searching is very cheap. You put all your knowledge into the item description, document type attributes, and other indexed fields. You let the computer assign a unique but purely arbitrary number, and set up part-part, document-document and document-part relationships without regard to the identifiers of either part or document.
There are also human factors considerations in making an identifier short & numeric, and these efficiencies typically conflict with significant systems.
RE: Part Numbering System
The time it takes to argue over whether a new item belongs under on category or another (and just how often this argument comes up, even on the simpliest of systems) is more than enough reason by itself to avoid significant "smart" numbers.
Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group
RE: Part Numbering System
Regards
Jake
RE: Part Numbering System
I've been putting together a departmental doc numbering (CM) scheme. Any suggestions on how we should address tabulated & multi-detail part dwgs?
Base Dwg#
210093-00 Drop the 00 base suffix?
or
210093
Tabulations
-01
-02
-03
w/ three place suffix:
Base
210093-100
Tabulations
-101
-102
-103
######
How about multi-detail part Dwg's?
Base Dwg#
210083-00 Drop the 00 base suffix?
or
210083
Details:
-01
-02
-03
-NOT-
210083-01
Details:
-01
-02
-03
--Wanted to post this in one of these threads:
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=136028
h
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=45542
but they are closed.
Thanks again,
gdahll
SW 2007 SP3
ACAD 2002
RE: Part Numbering System
Suggest you start a new thread rather than re-starting this older one.
thread1103-160197: Any have any perfect part numbering systems?
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...