Non Significant Part Numbering System
Non Significant Part Numbering System
(OP)
Good evening peers! Here is my current part numbering scheme listed below and my plan of action if and when the original allocation of numbers run out. I am hung up on what to do after the first set of 500000-599999 numbers, please see below:
100000-199999 RAW MATERIALS 600000-699999
200000-299999 Purch.Parts 700000-799999
300000-399999 Manuf.Parts 800000-899999
400000-499999 Sub ASM/WLD 900000-999999
500000-599999 Top Lvl ASMS
What do you recommend for Top Level ASM's when I or we use 599999? I don't see this happening but a plan has to be in order for "the future".
Thank you all for your comments on this topic.
Justin
100000-199999 RAW MATERIALS 600000-699999
200000-299999 Purch.Parts 700000-799999
300000-399999 Manuf.Parts 800000-899999
400000-499999 Sub ASM/WLD 900000-999999
500000-599999 Top Lvl ASMS
What do you recommend for Top Level ASM's when I or we use 599999? I don't see this happening but a plan has to be in order for "the future".
Thank you all for your comments on this topic.
Justin






RE: Non Significant Part Numbering System
Jeff Mirisola
My Blog
RE: Non Significant Part Numbering System
I totally agree with Jeff that by assigning certain numbers to certain things, you've made them significant. If I were you, I would use a sequential number for parts, and another one for assembly. Just to make sure that lengths of your part numbers and assembly numbers are appropriate for your needs (future needs). I would choose 8 or 10 digits.
Best regards,
Alex
RE: Non Significant Part Numbering System
[/rant]
Jeff Mirisola
My Blog
RE: Non Significant Part Numbering System
"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."
Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of these Forums?
RE: Non Significant Part Numbering System
- A00000 - A99999 - Probably the best if there is no hard requirement (software) that part numbers are really numbers.
- 000000 - 099999 - Unused in the existing scheme, yet still 6 digits an strictly a number.
- 1000000 - 1099999 - 7 digits, but follows the pattern of 500K greater than the old number.
EricRE: Non Significant Part Numbering System
Part models (*.sldprt) and assembly models (*.sldasm) are two different kinds of objects in Solidworks. So, to me it is natural to use two different kinds of part numbering schemes for them. Additionally, because parts models are related to assembly models, it would be awkward to create relationship for a part to itself.
Best regards,
Alex
RE: Non Significant Part Numbering System
How did you go from agreeing with me to disagreeing with me?
Remember that the part numbering system you use will go beyond SolidWorks. As for parts and assemblies being different therefore lending themselves to different part numbering systems, that just doesn't make sense at all.
Let's look at it this way: you need a 1/2-16 x 2 Hex head cap screw, but you don't know if there's already one modeled. How are you going to search for it? I'm betting you're going to do a search looking for some portion of the part's name because there's no way you can guess what the part number is, even if you have the numbers separated between parts and assemblies. Which goes back to my main point, part numbers are only place holders.
The part numbering system you choose will end up being used by your purchasing department, your parts department and your manufacturing line. The part number provides a unique identifier to a part, making it less likely that you'll get a 12 inch bolt when you wanted a 1/2 inch bolt, but it in no way defines the part.
Jeff Mirisola
My Blog
RE: Non Significant Part Numbering System
I understand what you are saying.
But, you can search for descriptions within a file that is saved as a part number.
My experience is if you have configuration control established within your company, each part should have it's own P/N along with its own dwg. Each assy the same. The assy has its own P/N different from any part, but listing a BOM or PL that lists parts that make up the assy.
The numbers can be any scheme as long as the company follows it and undertands it.
I'm not a fan of assigning P/N's to purchased parts, it can be a nightmare.
Chris
SolidWorks 11
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion
RE: Non Significant Part Numbering System
Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
RE: Non Significant Part Numbering System
My experience is that no matter what system is in place, smart or dumb, the numbering method will change. Whether it is new management dictating a change between smart/dumb, new software limitations/requirements, merging of companies/software systems, etc… Change is inevitable.
Engineering, purchasing, sales, & manufacturing all have different views on what the numbers should look like. It is your job to determine which method is simplest for the entire organization today.
RE: Non Significant Part Numbering System
You're misunderstanding me. I never said a part shouldn't have a part number; they most certainly should. What I'm saying isn't you don't need one set of numbers for parts and another for assemblies, as the OP suggested. You just need to decide how many digits you need. One could argue that you can start with 4 digits and then just grow accordingly. Why decide that you're going to go with 5 or 6, when you don't have 10,000 parts/assemblies?
Here, everything gets a part number, including purchased parts. Any derived file (drawing, parasolid, etc) has the same number. Of course an assembly's BOM lists its child parts by P/N and description, with a quantity.
I haven't had any problems assigning P/N's to purchased parts, and it certainly makes things easier for inventory and when pulling parts for builds.
Jeff Mirisola
My Blog
RE: Non Significant Part Numbering System
Yes, I misread you.
I agree with you on the digits.
Chris
SolidWorks 11
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion
RE: Non Significant Part Numbering System