×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Drawing numbering system
14

Drawing numbering system

Drawing numbering system

(OP)
Dear Folks;

Back in the old days, a number for each drawing sheet was quite sufficient. Now with seperate drawing, part and assembly files I was wondering if anyone can share a good numbering/recording system for keeping track of drawings.

At the moment I record my drawing, part and assembly numbers in a spreadsheet which allows me to search or sort my work for particular information. But of course this is not an optimum solution for large numbers of drawing files.

Best Regards

Adrian D

RE: Drawing numbering system

Back at an old job I used to work for using SW. What we did is we added part number and name to the parts, assemblies, and drawings. We listed the part or assembly the drawing referenced.

XXXX-XXXX-1Shaft.sldprt
XXXX-XXXX-2ShaftAssembly.sldasm

XXXX-XXXX-1.slddrw - referencing XXXX-XXXX-1Shaft.sldprt
XXXX-XXXX-2.slddrw - referencing XXXX-XXXX-2ShaftAssembly.sldasm

Giving them a number and a name help us determine what files were what when searching for them. We also place them into special folders on the server.

The draw back was looooong file names on some files. Which could sometimes make it hard to list in the space provided on the drawing.

As SW advanced, my ideas started changing on how we could better use these advantages.

The use of Custom properties and other things came to mind....but I left the company and started working for someone else. So I never got to finish.


That's about how it was then.

Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies
credence69@REMOVEhotmail.com
http://www.3dvisiontech.com
http://www.3dmca.com

*When in doubt always check the help*

RE: Drawing numbering system

5
Your question really is about part numbering, and revision numbering. I attended a class about this call “Engineering Documentation and Control” shortly after starting to use SolidWorks. The problem is complex and there is no one best solution yet. Having tried several different methods of my own, and work with others companies systems.
I have some suggestion. The disclaimer is I hate part numbering and tracking of inventory. We have created over 20,000 SolidWorks files in 7 years, and stock over 2,000 different part numbers in a company with 3 employees that build small 1-20pc lot quantities of part and assemblies.
With that said, Try a semi significant or license plate type alpha-numeric number  system with 7 or less characters. Assign a part number to each part or assembly that is unique, and put a description in the file properties. Store the drawing under the part number, SolidWorks does this by default. Do a “file save as” and assign a new part number to any revision that is not backwards compatible rather than using revisions of the original by adding a rev. number. Be sure the someone destroys  the paper drawings when the project is complete and everything is updated from shop changes.
We have been using a six character semi significant numbering system with Excel to record what part numbers are used and their description. This is a poor method when searching for an item. To date  I haven’t decided the best way to track the information about a part, or assembly.

RE: Drawing numbering system

A PDM system takes alot of the burden off your shoulders.  SolidWorks offers a number of different choices and it's worth looking into.

RE: Drawing numbering system

I'm a big supporter of non-significant part numbers.  This means that the number can't tell you anything about what you are looking at.  You can't tell the difference between part number 12345 or 54321.  This means that you have to rely on another system (PDM, ERP, MRP, ect...) to track things.

If you are worried about drawings, parts and assemblies having the same part numbers, I don't think it's an issue.  After all, the file types have different file extensions.  If you want to find a part, you look for .SLDPRTs, if you want an assembly, you look for a .SLDASM, ect.

If you are working in a small shop, and don't have any other tracking software for your parts, then a semi-significant part numbering method might work for you... in the short term.  As you start to increase your design work and reliance in SW, you will find that your semi-significant part numbers will have to get longer and longer, making things even more difficult to control.

The company I currently work for uses a 5 digit non-significant part numbering method.  We have over 15 different product lines, some of which have multiple configurations (commerical and private use versions).  We have about 30k SW parts and assemblies, and have been using SW since SW96+.

"The attempt and not the deed confounds us."

RE: Drawing numbering system

I have looked at PDM software ever since I’ve used SolidWorks. There can be check in and check out problems when working with assemblies over 200 parts. One major one for me is the check in and out time. Although I haven’t look at it in the last 2 years my concern now is how long it would take to implement.

MadMango,
You are correct about the semi significant part numbering system being a pain. If and when I change I will use a 5 digit non-significant numbering system. With a small company there is a cost to do this, and right now we cannot afford to change.

RE: Drawing numbering system

(OP)
Dear Ed, Scott and Mad Mango;

Thank you for your helpful replies. I like the idea of a six digit non significant part number. I was hoping SW might have some ability to provide additional fields for drawing information that could be accessed in SW explorer but I guess you have to buy the PDM software for this ability.

Many thanks

Adrian D.

RE: Drawing numbering system

Adrian,
You can put information in the custom tab by clicking file the properties. We use description, created, updated, material, vendor, and weight. We use these items in the BOM. This information can be searched through SolidWorks Explore's Property Search. I may be case sensitive.

RE: Drawing numbering system

Ok, now this may sound like a silly question; but, why would anyone prefer a non-signifigant numbering system to a system where information is encoded into a part number. I would think that a part should provide information to merit its very existance. I don't fool with inventory; so I don't deal with this type of stuff. I would think a non-signifigant numbering system would require someone to use a primer to determine what the part is associated with. I just thought that was counter-intuitive to desire a number that is meaningless; but, I'm quessing the number is used in a way that lends itself to this. I'm speaking strictly as a consumer of data when I say I prefer to buy stuff from people whose part numbers are "feature encoded" like Numation,Camozzi, etc. Is managing non-signifigant part numbers really easier? And Why? sPLain Lucy!

RE: Drawing numbering system

Skills,
The problem with part numbers that mean something is once the person who developed them, or their mind is gone the reason for the number is gone. We designed a semi-significant numbering system in 1997, today a lot of the numbers mean nothing to me. Finding a specific part is just as difficult with any numbering system after not using the item for a year or two.
I actually spent over $10,000.00 to develop a software to find information during 1999 and 2000. NOT a search engine. A person searches when there lost and don’t have a clue. Finding something requires remembering where it is. The difficulty with software to find things is you have to give structure to unstructured data in a way that jogs your memory and leads you down the correct path. This path becomes an n-dimensional tree structure or 3D map with clues along the way. My beta software used XML and didn’t work well, so that project is on hold.

RE: Drawing numbering system

3
   I have worked as a job shopper in a lot of companies. A large percentage of them have numbering systems with intelligence added into them. There is nothing wrong with having an intelligent numbering system providing an Index is included and there is a system for handling natural growth problems.

   It is the growth problems that make an intelligent numbering systems hard to work with. Most of the time the originator of the system tries to make the system as smart as possible, adding sub-category after sub-category and doesn't think hard enough about what will happen after 4 or 5 years of growth. This makes the name of the originator of a poorly designed systems to be remembered. People will use it frequently, along with adjectives like Stupid, Dumb-A$$, and Idiot. A lot of people really hate the problems these systems can acquire.

   Consider an index with a general category for Bearings, so all Bearings in this system could have a part number starting with 123x-xxx. In the index there are subcategories for Bushings, Ball, Air, Linear, and Sleeve, Etc.

   Now we need a part number for a new Clutch Bearing and all of the 123x sub-categories are used. We can do one of two things, either ignore the intelligence or we can assign a new category. In defense of the first case - Hay, the Clutch Bearing does have ball bearings (at least the first one did). In the second instance, the Bushings/Bearings will get two have two numbers (123x and 456x).

   In either case, the reason behind the system is being subverted. That reason is - The longer a person works with the system - The more numbers are remembered and the need to look them up is reduced. An Old-Hand know where to go while New-Bees spend a lot of time looking things up.

   Some thoughts that do work.

   If you do create an intelligent system, try to refrain from adding too much intelligence to it. Take Screws as an example; It seems reasonable to separate Screws into their Inch / Metric versions. It also seems reasonable to separate the various kinds of screws; BHCS, SHCS, FHCS, HHCS, Etc (except that there are a LOT of different kinds of Screws Categories to be accounted for and each one gets multiplied by 2 for the Inch/Metric versions. It also makes sense for those categories to be very similar (1010-xxx for Metric BHCS and 1011 for Inch BHCS) except that most of them will never be used. So don't separate them into the Inch/Metric versions (allow the file name to do that). Also - Try to add an OTHER or MISC Sub-Categories for special items. There are a lot of fasteners that are readily available on the market today that were not available 5 or 10 years ago.

   Different companies do the same things in different ways. I know one that has a single numbering system but uses a key in the part number to indicate P/M/F (Purchase / Modify / Fabricate) status. Another only has Purchased or Fabricated parts but uses a different numbering system for each of them.

   Personally, I liked the latter system the best. They did have an intelligent system but they left a lot of room in it for growth. It used xxxx-xxxx part numbers for Purchased Parts and a xxxxxx-xxx part numbers for Fabricated Parts. They did have an intelligent system for the Fabricated Parts but the logic behind it was cumbersome and didn't make sense with SolidWorks. One of the nice things about the Fab Parts system was that it allowed similar parts to have similar part numbers. A good example might be a RH/LH mirrored parts or parts where dimensions could be easily tabulated. This quite often produced a cost savings by reducing programming time down in the machine shop. It also made adding a new part revision almost painless.

   A Directory system should also be created and it should be almost identical to the numbering systems. On this computer I use the Subst command to generate a drive that duplicates the Mapped drives on the Network at work. My X Drive points to my Fabricated Parts Directory and my Y Drive points to my Purchase Parts Directory.

   File Names - For Fabricated Parts are based on the 'PartNumber - Noun, Verb, Verb' standard. For Purchased Parts it is 'Noun, Verb, Verb - PartNumber'. The reason for the difference is that Fabricated Parts are almost always referenced by their part number while Purchased Parts are not. Most of the time Purchase Parts are found by their description and not by their part number (Windows Explorer sorts them by filenames and allows drag and drop into an assembly). A Screw example would be 'Screw, BHCS, M3x12, Black Oxide - 1234-0025'

    Many of my Purchased and Fabricated Parts are actually Assembly Files. An example of this might be a cylinder that has motion and is created from 3 or 4 different parts (a Cylinder, Rod, Clevis, and a Pin). The file names of the Parts is always identical to the name of the Assembly file with a descriptor added to the end.

Oh, by the way. You will find that the fastest and easiest way to modify SW Properties and Custom Properties (not sure about Configuration Specific Properties) is to use Windows Explorer. R-Click on a file and select Properties.

Lee

RE: Drawing numbering system

I think I should expand on this paragraph a little.

   File Names - For Fabricated Parts are based on the 'PartNumber - Noun, Verb, Verb' standard. For Purchased Parts it is 'Noun, Verb, Verb - PartNumber'. The reason for the difference is that Fabricated Parts are almost always referenced by their part number while Purchased Parts are not. Most of the time Purchase Parts are found by their description and not by their part number (Windows Explorer sorts them by filenames and allows drag and drop into an assembly). A Screw example would be 'Screw, BHCS, M3x12, Black Oxide - 1234-0025'

Part numbers are generally added on an as needed basis so a slightly longer version of the screw mentioned above could easily be 1234-0250. If the part number was first like it is in the Fab Parts then a database program or a table would have to be accessed constantly. By placing the description first the next size should be very near the original part.

Lee

RE: Drawing numbering system

Lee, first thanks for the very good tips.
You said:
"An Old-Hand knows where to go while New-Bees spend a lot of time looking things up."
So here is a little help for the New-Bees
The part number format we use where I work is XXX-XXXX-XXX. The first 3 digits define what kind of part it is (bolt, shaft. etc.).
To make part numbers a little more meaningful the first three digits stand for the first three letters of the part as spelled on the keys of your telephone. Ex: a Shaft number is 742-XXXX-XXX.
If you get another part that would start with the same number, you just pick the next number available. Ex: Spring: 777, Sprocket: 778.
I found that to be very useful.

Jean-Michel

RE: Drawing numbering system

The down side of part numbers over 7 digits is they require a lot of label space if you bar code the item. Other people using your products may have to reassign a number to work with their inventory system.

RE: Drawing numbering system

Lejeanmi

   I did like your phone number trick when I first read it. Then I made the mistake of playing with it a little.

   Going from a word to a part number is easy, but going from a part number to a word is a royal PITA. Using your 742-xxxx-xxx example produces
PGA, PGB, PGC, PHA, PHB, PHC, PIA, PIB, PIC,
QGA, QGB, QGC, QHA, QHB, QHC, QIA, QIB, QIC,
RGA, RGB, RGC, RHA, RHB, RHC, RIA, RIB, RIC,
SGA, SGB, SGC, SHA, SHB, SHC, SIA, SIB, SIC
   The problem I have is that even with the entire list sitting in front of me, Shaft is hard to see. That might be just me, but there it is. You probably don't have a problem with it but I think that’s because your familiarity with the system. I have to admit that I got hung up on PGA (Acronym used in electronics) and I spotted RIB for Ribbon before I ever got down to Shaft. There might be other valid products in there but I could not see them, unless you know where we can purchase some Star Trek Phasers.

   Something that you might want to consider, download the ANSI abbreviations and edit it to create an index if you don't already have one.

   To me, it would be simpler to use a straight 3 letter Alphanumeric key for this. That would eliminate all of the 3 and 4 letter combinations and Shaft readily comes to (my) mind with a part number like SHA-xxxx-xxx.

RE: Drawing numbering system

EdDanzer

   I just looked at the bar coding on a bunch of food products in my pantry. They all have a 10-character part number.

   I am curious about the logic because I have worked for a couple of OEM’s and haven’t seen it applied in any of them. A fast look at some of the larger distributors produced the following:
Carr Lane – 7 to 10 characters (not counting –s)
Cole-Parmer – 9 characters (not counting –s)
Digikey - 9 to 15? characters (not counting –s)
Lee Springs - 9 to 10 characters (not counting –s)
McMaster Carr – 9 characters (not counting –s)

   In most of the companies that I have worked for, a company specific number is assigned to a part and it rarely has any relationship to the manufactures part number. The manufacturers part number will be recorded and used for reordering but that’s about all. A couple of companies did use the manufactures part number without any reassignment but those companies had part number problems constantly. Parts from different companies having the identical numbers, very LONG part numbers (Try using SMC part numbers, some are 20 / 30 characters long).

Lee

RE: Drawing numbering system

StarrRider,
My McMaster-Carr Catalog 108 has 7 digits for the ordering numbers, Grainger has 5 digits, Allied Electronics has 7. The number of digits in a numbering system that a company uses in their catalog doesn’t mean it is the best. Companies may be using legacy systems to save the cost of translating to a new system.
When a business is starting from scratch they need to look at the big picture, what is the down stream cost of the system chosen.
The biggest reason for a smaller numbering systems is to reduce error in reading and writing the part number. In a shop environment when people type or write they will have an error rate of about 1 digit per 50 digits documented. In an office environment it goes up to about 1 per 1000 keystrokes. This is why most consumer products are bar coded, this bar code is used for data collection to eliminate keystroke error. You should ask a purchasing agent if there is a greater chance of ordering the incorrect item if there is longer part numbers when handed a handwritten note. Worse yet try reading a part number off a label that has a bunch of numbers. I have been working on a machine with Allen Bradley servo drives. They use a 16 digit number on the motor tag that is very small so they can get it on the tag. I miss read both motor tags, During phone support we wasted 10 minutes just over the part number error.
If you look strictly at the cost of data quality errors, it is one of businesses largest costs that should not happen. When there is information in more than one place you must have people manually update the information between them the larger the part number the greater the chance of error.
These data manipulation errors cost real money. Not only is there time loss, there is usually freight costs as well.

RE: Drawing numbering system

StarrRider,
I like your idea of having the first 3 letters of the part as the beginning of the part number, SHA-XXXX-XXX.
But what happen when you have two parts that start with the same 3 letters, like Cart and Cartridge? I guess we can use Synonyms. The other thing is that using letters (vs numbers) in a part number can double the length of its barcode.
There is obviously no "one solution fit all" when it comes to assigning part numbers. A bolt manufacturer will have different part numbers requirements than an auto maker.
If you are really interested in the topic here is a link to good paper on Part Numbering System Format from Dave Perton thesis:
http://www.geocities.com/d_perton/app.html

RE: Drawing numbering system

Lejeanmi

   This is the growth problem I was talking about. It is natural for people to want to add subcategories so that each products will fit into it's own little bracket. In the xxxx-xxxx system I mentioned before, a new category would be added each time a new product was added with a slightly different description. This is fine except that eventually you will run out of slots for your subcategories.

   In your Cart / Cartridge problem, the question is whether a subcategory is really needed. I know it’s natural for structured minds like ours to want everything nice and tidy but is it really necessary? Is the annoyance of seeing a dozen Carts in a category that contains a couple thousand Cartridges worth providing subcategories?

   If it is, then lets define the system a little more. It is by default AAA-xxxx where the first 3 letters are the same as the parts name and only the digits 0-9 are used for the x’s. Each CAR product has 9,999 but if you replace the leading x with a letter (not using I, J, L, O, or Q) so you have your original 9,999 parts with an additional 21 subcategories from AAA-Axxx to AAA-Zxxx and each has 999 possible parts.

   The only problem with this approach is that if the first part placed into a category would own 9,999 possible part numbers while a subcategory would only own 999. So if your dozen Carts were the first in there would not be enough room for a couple thousand Cartridges. While an ECO would take care of this it really isn’t needed if you keep an index. Allow the Carts the first 999 parts (from CAR-0001 to CAR-0999) and add a subcategory to the index for your Cartridges starting at CAR-1001.

RE: Drawing numbering system

EdDanzer

   The following are 3 McMaster Carr P/N’s taken from their web-based catalog: 8749K11 (PVC Tubing), 5463K367 (Barb Fitting), & 92316A550 (Hex Flanged Screw) - I could not find a 10-digit P/N but I believe I have seen them in the past. I do have to agree with you that this is not the best system. That is not because of the number of digits but because even with so many digits in use, additional information has to be provided with a number of products. The PVC Tubing is a good example of this because a cut length is required.

   I don’t mean to be argumentative. The fact is that I agree with the majority of what you have said. It is just that you seem to keep insisting that the number of digits in a system is more important than anything else. I cannot agree with that, possibly because I have worked for too many companies with poorly designed systems that were very hard to work with. In that category I have to include non-intelligent system, because they require a lookup (either by a database, a drawing, or from a manual) each and every time a part is needed or referenced. They steal time and productivity from every person in the company.

   Many companies have created intelligent documentation systems with varying degrees of success. It is possible that they ALL work, but success has to be measured by their ease of use and the number of exception that are required.

   So what does work and why? Where does an intelligent system work and make sense? Where does it make more sense to use a non-intelligent system? Are there any viable methods for limiting the number of digits in a system? I know there are and I have my own opinions. Even the example you provided earlier poses questions that were never gone into. You spent a lot of money on a failed system but what was wrong with it? Was it simply because an index was not created and maintained or were there other problems with it?

Lee

RE: Drawing numbering system

StarrRider,
Sorry to harp on the subject of less digits, but as the owner of a small company I have paid the price of typographical errors. We have a 6 character semi-significant numbering system covering over 20,000 different parts and assemblies. Some of the parts I can remember, the majority have to be looked up for accuracy.
Most of these parts have a manufactures part number as one of the fields in the custom properties, so the purchasing person can order the part.
Just taking the information off the BOM for ordering still has at least a 1 per 1,000 digits error that causes incorrect ordering of parts. The person opening the package may not recognize the error, so the assembly person finds out when they need the part. This usually means air freight to correct the problem, plus the time wasted getting RMA number and repackaging the part and out going freight. This time and expense far exceeds the lookup cost.
As I said in my first post, “I hate part numbering and tracking of inventory”. To date I’m not sure there is a good method, our current system gets a C or D for overall value.
If someone figures out a good system they should be able to sell it.

Ed

RE: Drawing numbering system

Lee, if you've ever ordered DU Bearings, they use significant part numbers like 08du16 and such.  The first 2 digits represent the diameter of the bearing and the last two digits represent the length.

"The attempt and not the deed confounds us."

RE: Drawing numbering system

EdDanzer

   I sympathize and think I understand. With appropriate controls in place, a good Accounting/Inventory Control software package should eliminate most of the problems you are describing. I wish I could provide you the name of a good program but I cannot. The last company I worked for had ManFact and I used a lot of other names to describe that system. It did do the job but it was very difficult to learn, had more twists and turns than a snake, and had the look and feel of an old DOS program (on a NT platform). Several years (4) before that I used MASS 90 and I wasn’t terribly impressed with it either. If you decide to start an evaluation process, check out http://www.2020software.com/
they claim to have the top 20 packages and provide Free Demos and Selection Assistance.

   Once the data is entered in one of these systems, ordering parts can be made automated (internal as well as vendors). You have to set up scheduling but they will generate your P/O as need without any manual input. They also track the P/O so you’ll know when something is late and can start annoying your distributor.

   The process we employed for new parts was:
·    Original part selected and P/O generated (by hand) by the Engineer – If acceptable
·    ECO to release the new part and Data Entry form filled out with a copy of the catalog page or spec sheets (with the P/N nicely circled) for historical purposes
·    ECO comes back to the Engineer for final approval with a printout of primary fields

   Most of the ordering problems that I saw were related to older parts. When the company was a lot younger there were no controls on data entry, at least the last step was omitted. As a result, the primary fields (P/N, Description, Vendor, Mfg. P/N, and Allow Alternates) were – Ahhh – varied, often blank, and no historical data was preserved.

   A fitting might have a Part number of 1/8ELBOW with no description. So if you needed to know if it was a Male/Female, NPT/BSPP/Barbed, or the material you had to pull one from stock or use the Mfg. P/N and find it in their catalog (if you could find one).

RE: Drawing numbering system

First off we have a CM dept. that keeps a seperate excel Master drawing list for each program and all new drawing numbers are requested thru them. They use a combination of 6 digit non-significant numbers with a suffix identifier and the revision (306124NDXA)this is what we name our SW drawing files. The "ND" in this case stands for an Installation Drawing and the "XA" is the preproduction revision. The number itself may be a 30 or 306 series for a particular program but not always.
For our Solidworks Assemblies and parts we use significant names(usually the corosponding drawing title). Since our CM don't trust SW users to maintain the source files, we have to give them to CM before they will release any drawings. So what we currently do is give them rapid draft files during the pre-production phase and then when the drawings are baselined, we give them a zip file of the full model with the upper level install as the zip file name(306124ND-). This would include all the parts, drawings, and assemblies under the install (usually use find references).
We have a lot of facilities spread out over the U.S. so If someone needed any of the files, CM could just send them a copy of the zip file.
So far we have not had any problems with this method, but only time will tell.

Bob

RE: Drawing numbering system

MadMango

   The last company I worked for is typical for most of my employers. With them, your DU Bearing P/N 08du16 would end up with a part number like 6562-1012. The description would probably be BEARING, DU, 08x16. The filename for the model would be Bearing, DU, 08x16 – 6562-1012. That file would be stored in the \Hardware\Bearings directory.
   We normally included the Manufacturers name and P/N but it wasn’t used. A special Vendors database was maintained for all Manufacturers or Distributors and a Data Entry sheet would include a copy of the catalog page showing the bearing in question.

   The intelligent systems that I have been referring to would have a category like 656 (above) for all Bearings and a subcategory of 2 for DU Bearings. I think you can see the problem with this. That is, providing no OTHER subcategory was provided.

   This raises another question though. From reading this string I started getting the impression that many of you only use the P/N for a filename. This would work fine if you only used SW to open and insert parts. I don’t. I use Windows Explorer almost exclusively to open or insert parts, assemblies, and drawings. Personally, I find that a lot faster than using SW and having to navigate to the correct directory constantly. I usually have 2 or more sessions of WE open in different directories (Project/Hardware).

Lee

RE: Drawing numbering system

OOPS

   We normally included the Manufacturers Name and P/N in the Summary Data (Not a Custom Property).
   A Drawing always started it's life at Rev. A1 for pre-released parts. All parts were released at Rev B. Only a full ECO bumped Rev Letters. Markups made incremental Rev changes (B1).
   Purchased Parts used an index driven numerical system with the format xxxx-xxxx. We maintained a manual hand written log for these parts.
   The format for Manufactured parts was xxxxxx-xxx. The suffix was intelligent but didn't make any sense and was often ignored. The first 2 digits of the PN was project oriented. The filename was ‘P/N – Description’ and were stored below the Fabrication Directory in a folder for the project. Originally, we created a hand written log for these files as well. I later created an Excel for them. After we lost half our workforce, we stopped logging the P/Ns entirely and relied on Windows Explorer which – almost – worked.

Lee

RE: Drawing numbering system

I like to place vendor information in Summary Data too.  It makes it nice when you hover your pointer over the file name in Explorer or SW, as it displays this info for you.

We create Source Control Drawings (or Vendor Item Drawings) for every purchased component, and give it our own 5 digit number.

And, I think you might have stumbled across an enhancement request.  It would be nice to be able to set-up some "favorite folders" across your network in SW, that you could directly pull files from.

"The attempt and not the deed confounds us."

RE: Drawing numbering system

MadMango

   I believe that is what they originally created the Feature Pallet for. All of you favorite directories can be added to it. You can Drag parts into an assembly or R-Click to edit them.

   There are a couple of problems with using the Feature Pallet for this. The main one is that it is SLOW! The speed is comparable to Windows Explorer when the display Icons setting is turned on. Opening a directory with a couple hundred parts can easily take a minute or more. Second is the fact that ONLY parts are displayed. Many of my insertable parts are actually assemblies. Finally, it does not include the browse over feature that you just mentioned.

   However, adding a enhancement request for a Favorites Directory to launch Windows Explorer (or something like it) would not be a bad idea.

   If I could have only one enhancement request granted by SW that would not be it. I would ask (and have) that SW Explorer loose the Outlook UI and adopt a Windows Explorer UI allowing a fast preview of files (everything SW including Macros).

Lee

RE: Drawing numbering system

All of this is worthy of a book on the subject, so there must be one out there. Anyone have a cite?
Some thoughts on numbering systems I have used:
The ten digit system someone mentioned is like the UPC code. Five digits for the manufacturer, five for their products. This would be useful at the retail level, but is a force fit in manufacturing. It might be helpful for purchased parts except all the control is in the hands of the vendor. This does not help when you multisource a part. Also, UPC is to be superceded with a system from EU eventually. (Surprised? You shouldn't be )

A long, descriptive catalog number can be useful for a customer to select say, a valve or a cyclinder. Your internal manufacturing system may not need that complexity.
A five digit part number is not enough, go for seven.
The current revision part is the plain file number [xxxxxxx] with rev level and date info in Properties. Old revs are 'saved as' copies [xxxxxxx-A].
All drawings related to a part are saved as sheets. I have used drawings which were design, production, inspection, customer, and purchasing variations. SW handles this beatifully.
Configurations can be handled with dash numbers, ie., xxxxxxx-001 is a part number while the base number xxxxxxx is the file name. Signifigant dash numbers are inevitable in some products like connectors for material variations and number of positions.
Signifigant number systems inevitably fail but are handy for the person who initiates the product line.
Signifigant number systems fail because of entropy. No system stays organized for more than a couple of management roll-overs. They also fail because too many numbers get wasted.
I now use a system where the first three characters of a part are customer ID alpha characters like SUX. What happens when the customer name changes? What happens when you sell the same part to another customer? Doh!
I was also struck by the though that the most useful part number for us is DNA. It uses only four characters arranged in a long signifigant word that is actually a build list for the, errrrm, product.

Crashj 'just thinking' Johnson

RE: Drawing numbering system

We have learned to take advantage of the long file names allowed in Windows.  So much of our stuff was set from our ACAD legacy with the 8.3 file name restrictions.  (One place I worked for had developed a "base 30" numbering system; 0-9 plus 20 alpha characters.  We had a simple routine to convert forward and back.  Key in the part number and out pops the base 30 numbering for the filename.  Wow!)

When we converted from Autocad to SolidWorks I was able to push through something which could have been done even in ACAD.  Essentially I was able to take advantage of the "upset apple cart" and get some other changes to our mindset.  Our filenames used to be 8 characters consisting of a 6-digit part number (where the first character was an alpha) followed by two characters which indicated the rev level and sheet number.  All sheets were separate files.

My heartburn with this was that since the part numbers had no smarts to them I was always having to run all kinds of searches in our MRP system in order to find the part number.  Now we still start our file name with the same six characters and add the rev level, but we no longer show sheet number since we keep all drawing sheets in the same file.  The biggest difference is that we now add the part name.  Our file names now look like this:

S123450.Power Supply Chassis - Product such-n-such.SLDPRT

This would be part number S12345, initial release (rev 0).  We use the same convention for SLDDRW and SLDASM files.

Taking advantage of the long file names and allowing the use of multiple dot delimeters has made our life a whole lot easier.  Now we can search on the part name, which is always easier to figure out.

Incidentally, we have also established a policy that whenever an existing ACAD drawing is changed it is at the very least sucked into a SolidWorks drawing and given the new naming convention.  Preferably the part is also solid modeled, but we have a bunch of lazy asses and first line management that is too busy to force the discipline.

Though this could have been done with ACAD, it wasn't.  By making the change to SolidWorks we were also able to implement this change which cost us nothing but has payed tremendous dividends.

- - -DennisD

RE: Drawing numbering system

Two things that are very helpful:

1) Do everything you can to avoid using the Part Number as the drawing number.  This would preclude you from being able to have multiple configurations on a single drawing, and fosters the misconception that a document number and a part number are the same thing.

2) Include the revision level in the drawing filename and match that rev in the SLDPRT/SLDASM filename.  You don't want to ever have two drawings anywhere in the universe that have the same drawing number and revision, but don't look identical.  Even one teeny weeny difference brings into question the integrity of the control system being used.

Tim

RE: Drawing numbering system

I'd like to advise against including revision information in the file name if your company ever plans on growing to the point where they will have to use a PDM solution to keep everything straight.  You will have to remove this revision information later, and it creates a lot of necessary work that could be avoided.  If required, revision iformation should only be used for history tracking of changes.

"The attempt and not the deed confounds us."

RE: Drawing numbering system

Tim (fluxon)

   I do not understand the logic behind either of your recommendations, mainly because they are 180 degrees from what I have learned or done in the past.

   The first simply isn’t true. I have made several multiple configuration parts. An example would have a P/N similar to 123456-101 thru 123456-205 and each would have a slightly different Description. I do try to cheat and make these drawings tabulated. When I do I add an extra configuration named DOC and use that in the drawing and insert a manually created spreadsheet with the Part Numbers, Description, and the dimension values that change. I think that an automatically updated spreadsheet is possible, but I’ve never taken the time to try to make it happen. The drawing does not have to be tabulated. I have made several drawings with multiple sheets. I do differentiate our file naming standard slightly for these files by making it “123456-101-X – Description” for both the model and the drawing.

   The second might work, if you have a PDM that allows you to work that way. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to do it manually. You would have to open the drawing, the model, and every assembly it was used on and start doing a SaveAs to both with the new revision letter, then Zip the original files to get rid of them just in case you missed an assembly. That is a lot of work for absolutely no return.
   Dropping the revision letter from the file name makes a lot more sense. The drawing file will always be linked to the model and it eliminates the need to locate and update every assembly it was used on. A historical version of the drawing can still be maintained for each revision. At signoff for an ECO, your Documentation Control people can open the drawing and do a SaveAs to a TIF file adding the revision letter. These are large files so promptly move it into a Zip file with the same name. The resulting Zip file is smaller than the SW Document file.
   That may save your history data, but sooner or later you will open a Drawing and find that it does not even slightly match the last paper version that you have. After 3 years of working in SW, having established procedures, educated people, and creating Configurations dedicated to the Drawing, I still open Drawings and find changes. Balloons are missing or pointing at nothing. The BOM is changed. A view will have a dozen extra items visible. Normally, this is because someone was careless when opening an assembly and managed to hide or suppressed something in the wrong configuration. Not even part drawings are impervious to weird unexpected changes.

Lee

RE: Drawing numbering system

Tluxon

1 - We DO use part number to name the file. When it hapens to have a part with configurations, the file name will be 12345678XX (that means that it contains the parts 1234567800, 1234567801, 1234567802,...12345678NM) otherwise it wil have the full difined name 1234567800.

2 - We DON'T use the revision number of the file name. This makes the changes done very easely (the product structure does not need to be changed if a component is revised because the filenames are the same). The revision number and it's definition are configuration specific properties of the part/assembly. The documentation integrity is mantained because we only keep the last revision on the server (as simple as that).

We live perfectly well with this system and it as been proven to be strong and simple to use. But maybe it's not the case for other organizations.

As I allready said in other forums, we can never say what is wrong and what is right. What is good for someone is not necessarely good for others because many things change: the product, the organization, the strategy, the market, the people,... We can only share ideas and experiences so each one of us can find ways to improve it's system.

Regards

RE: Drawing numbering system

Lee,

You are entitled to your opinion but I respectfully disagree with you.  Let's not be insulting by saying an opinion isn't "true".

On your first point, I'm having a difficult time understanding what you're trying to say.  If you have experience with configuration control you surely recognize the importance of keeping document numbers and part numbers related but two distinct systems.  In your example of PN's 123456-101 thru 123456-205 I hope you plan on using a drawing number of 123456, even though the referenced models could be named by PN.

On the second point, I'm responsible for maintaining my own project design control files from inception of design.  In my experience, I have found it important to be able to reproduce history and occasionally have significant design changes that can diverge two or more ways.  Frequently, I take advantage of part designs  several iterations old.  Your last problem is avoided entirely as long as released (history) drawings & their driving parts are saved in a read-only folder.  Simply create a rev of each part that matches the rev of the drawing it currently resides in.  Maybe it seems like a bit of work, but it's quite simple and prevents the headache you described.

Cheers,

Tim

RE: Drawing numbering system

Tim (fluxon)

   I was not trying to insult you and I apologize if you think I did. I NEVER intentionally insult anyone. I don’t have to; it just works out that way. Quite often I end up looking like a beached fish, when I realize I did while trying to figure out what I said. We all have our own problems, and that is one of mine.

   With that said, how would you react if someone told you the sky is green – and they meant it?

   You had trouble understanding the first point. OK. I’ll try it again in a different way.

   If I were making a – frame out of 1x1 angle iron as an example, I would probably need several different lengths of that material. Lets stipulate that those parts are all be the same except for their length.
   I could create each part as an individual model. If I did this then I would need a drawing for each of the models that I created.
   I could also create a single model, add a design table to it and use the resulting configurations in my assembly as unique parts. I can also represent each of those parts in a single drawing if I have a table in it. That is the definition of a tabulated drawing.
   What I described earlier is the method that I use to create a tabulated drawing. The side view of the angle would be full detailed and the length would be modified to say ‘SEE DIM A”. The table would contain the P/N, Description, and DIM A. Now to make all that happen, and to ensure that my drawing does not change if the wrong configuration is changed, I would also add a ‘DOC’ configuration. This configuration would never be used in an assembly; it is strictly dedicated to the Drawing and allows me to have a ‘Special’ P/N and a Generic Description for the Drawing. If my part numbers ranged from 123456-101 to 123456-205 then I could use 123456-101-X for the DOC configuration.
   Most Documentation Systems have exceptions to the rule. A good system should have a ways to visibly identify those exceptions. The -X following the P/N indicates that there is something different about this drawing.
   As for the file name, it is handled in exactly the same way. If a normal file name is ‘123455-101 – Description’ then both the Model and the Drawing would use the number ‘123456-101-X – Generic Description’.
   We could have used ‘123456-101 – 205 - Generic Description’. That was rejected because tabulated parts have a tendency to grow over time and adding a new P/N would mean that the file’s name would no longer be accurate and would need to be changed.
   The downside – there is only one that I know of. Any time that an ECO modifies any of these parts then every one of these parts has it’s revision level bumped up a letter.


   When AutoCAD and programs like it first came on the scene, companies were forced to change their systems to use these new tools. There was a great deal of resistance to this but DOS only allowed an 8 digit file name with a 3 digit extension and AutoCAD claimed the extension for DWG. Only 8 digits and one of them had to include a revision letter while another had to be reserved for a sheet number because AutoCAD (at that time) would only allow a single sheet drawing. This resulted in a 6-digit part number with a Revision Letter and a Sheet number.
   SolidWorks on the other hand (I will not go into Pro-E!) is not so restrictive. They changed the system so that there are 3 separate kinds of files but those files are still linked internally. A Drawing KNOWS which Part or Assembly it belongs to and they KNOW where the drawing is. An assembly also KNOWS all of the Parts and Assemblies used in it.
   Most companies again tried to maintain the status quo, insisting that a revision letter be included in the filename. The problem with that is that those linkages exist. Changing a files name does not alter those linkages. If Drawing A is copied or renamed to Drawing B it will still open Part A if that was what it originally did. The same thing applies to assemblies. So if a revision letter is included in the files name, then to bump a revision you have to open each file that is referenced and do a SaveAs to each of them. Normally that is a lot of work with virtually no reward.

   I was referring to finalized parts and drawings, NOT to an R&D project which is what you are describing. With an R&D project, where you have to be able to jump back to an original design when something doesn’t pan out, you are correct in stating that your historical models have to be maintained. I still would not include a revision letter in the file name because of the amount of work that it entails. What I would do, and have done, is create a subdirectory below my project directory labeled ‘Rev A – 2-21-03’ and copy my entire project into it. That is fast and painless. On big projects I do that every Friday night before going home, or when I want to try something that I’m not sure will work. When the project is completed, these directories are deleted. I also keep an excel log to know which drawing have gone down to the shop and which have not.

Lee

RE: Drawing numbering system

tluxon

For R&D, in fact we have a different numbering system. Each R&D project have a code and the parts/assemblies and their drawings have the numbering system xxxyyvnnn (xxxyyy = R&D code; v = version of the project; nnn = sequencial number).

We have the following rules:
- each drawing as the same number as the part/assembly
- the last approved version is the one with no revision state in it's filename. For example, 068032001.SLDPRT can be in the actual approved revision A. If I modify it, I will save as 068032001_A.SLDPRT, for history porposes, and modify the 068032001.SLDPRT whitch, internally, will have it's custom properties updated accordingly (they will refer to rev. B). For another revision, I will save it as 068032001_B.SLDPRT and modify yhe 068032001.SLDPRT, and so on

Regards

RE: Drawing numbering system

macPT

   I think I like that approach. What I do is fast and simple but I have a LOT of duplicate files to deal with. I failed to mention that I do use a File Management program (PowerDesk) to help eliminate them, possibly because it does not work very well. SW insists on constantly updating files that I know have not been changed. I have never understood the logic behind that. I know I could keep them in a Read Only directory, but then I would have to deal with error message after error message every time I did a simple save.

RE: Drawing numbering system

I have enjoyed observing how other companies deal with part numbers and SolidWorks to make products. As the owner of a small company and the person who pays for the mistakes, I now understand why large companies costs are so high to develop a product.
It is not my intension to make any one mad or insult them, so don’t take the following comments to heart, these are observations from a person who has paid good money for mistakes that are easy it eliminate. Yes I do still make mistakes, and that doesn’t mean I’m happy with every project, cost constrains, time constrains, and other limitations effect the out come.
Since the buzz word collaboration is frequently used in manufacturing, and being a small company, designing products that are manufactured in small quantities, and upgraded or modified frequently, part numbers and drawings can cause more unnecessary expense than any part a products life cycle.
When a person designs something the people who manufacture it must deal with the part and drawing numbering to complete the task of converting the raw material into a finished product. Every engineer should have to take a set of drawing they know nothing about and order, machine, weld, deburr, and assemble this item using drawing with several rev numbers for each part, and sub assembly, tracking the total time spent completing the project. Then do the same for a product with part numbers that item specific. My experience is you can save from 10 to 50% in time and cost to manufacture by making the process stupid proof.

SolidWorks users who don’t open up every part, drawing and assembly, and resave them every time there is a major update will pay a high price. My first bad experience cost $6,000.00 in 1997. Today I loose about 5% productivity when working with older files.

Use configuration with caution, these are like a part number or separate file, loose track of how they work and somebody will start writing checks to fix the mistake.

Remember the people who use the drawings may not be much smarter than the material they are working with, and even the best can wake up with their stupid hat on. If the drawings or numbering system cause people to make mistakes in manufacturing, it is the engineers job to help these people succeed, your job will depend on it sooner than later.

A 10% increase in designing and producing a drawing package that eliminates mistakes and provide for simple change can pay for its self in the first iteration of a product, but for sure buy the fourth iteration. Changes will have to be made in every product during its life cycle, using a part number once, creating a new one for each change will reduce total cost over the life of a product. This concept is similar to serializing each item, but in a broader term.

Know your customers! When you design a product many people will interact with it during it life. The person who engineers the product will actually spend the least amount of time actually interacting with it during it life. The owner the most, the parts department next, then the service department, then manufacturing, then purchasing, then accounting. Now if a product needs constant engineering help it must be a poorly designed product, or poorly documented one, and the cost to everyone will shorten the products life, and hinder the company’s ability to sell more products to these customers. If you think the people who interact with this product the most care about what the part number means, do a survey. If you chose to do a survey, you should ask them about the parts and service manuals also. I will warn you, the people answering the survey may be brutal.

Good luck with your projects, and I hope you can make your customers happy.

Ed

RE: Drawing numbering system

This is an interesting discussion! We have been debating many of these same issues also. We decided to go with a numbering scheme which has no intelligence associated with it. Why? Because sooner or later, they all fail.

My 2 cents worth: You really are pointing up the need for a PDM system such as SmarTeam or similar.

The advantage, as I see it, beyond all the revision, check-in/check-out, linking abilities, etc. is that searches can be conducted on several "fields" i.e. - filtering, and the drawing number no longer plays an "intelligent" role.

I guess that's why things keep getting invented. Everything gets more complicated, more people involved, etc., etc.

RE: Drawing numbering system

Food for Thought

When I was a new Engineering grad, wet behind the ears, I was tasked to define a significant numbering system for screws. So I started defining the categories, subcategories, dash numbers and the like.  I wrote a simple one page description of the system, and was pleased with the result.  I could design a product, and rather than go search for the part number of a screw, could just define it and know what the appropriate number was.

One of the categories was for ‘special’ screws, ones that wouldn’t fit into the ‘standard’ categories. Various thumbscrews were good examples of specials.

The other Engineers and Engineering Managers were impressed with my work, and I was pretty pleased with myself.

Of course I was then asked to seek out all of the various screws currently in use and write an Engineering Change Notice to convert them from their existing part numbers to their new, improved part numbers.

Turned out we had about 27 different screws in our inventory, 7 of which were ‘special’.

Then I calculated the number of numbers the system used.

The result was over 7 MILLION.

The total number of different parts in our inventory was less than 4,000.

A list of existing screws could fit on the same page as the description of the numbering system, and it had the advantage of telling us what we already had in our inventory.

Years later, at another company going through the conversion of the inventory control system from one software package to another, the IT department had a high speed printer that created a set of books on a monthly basis which listed the inventory sorted by part number, by description, and by ‘type’ code (keywords).

This became a multi-dimensional ‘index’ of what we already had.  If you knew the part number, you could locate the description.  If you knew what you wanted, you could find out if it already existed.

The point is this:

significant numbering systems tell you what could be, not what is.  

The key to part numbers is to find what you have (and be able to add to that).  There are many ways to create and use indexes, and the use of computer systems has only made indexes easier to create and use.

I could go on and describe my experience at other companies, but the end result is that a simple insignificant number log, good naming conventions (keywords), matched up with powerful search capabilities is the heart of any good numbering system.  The number log keeps the process of assigning a number simple, and the keywords and search capabilities make the system simple to use.

A significant system complicates the search (because you have to remember, or search for all of the rules before you can use it), and complicates the number assignment (because you have to find the right log).

With an insignificant system, you will wind up with situations where different parts share the same set of keywords, but they will have different part numbers, and a where used search will help you distinguish between them (or looking at their models or drawings based on part number).

I’m currently developing a medical device, and I’m at the stage of estimating the number of parts the device will have.  The document control department has ‘given’ me a block of numbers that is about 150% larger than I will eventually need.  I’m ‘cherry picking’ numbers I’ll use for assemblies, custom parts, and off the shelf parts.  This allows me to use what I call a ‘soft’ significant system.  It has no significance beyond my decision to choose which number I’ll use for a given part, assembly, etc.

When the product is released, the only significance is the serendipity that all ‘new’ numbers for the product fall within the range of the block of numbers ‘given’ me.  They’ll all share the same first set of digits.  The number that happens to have the largest number of zeros in it will just happen to be the top assembly, which will lead to the Bill of Materials, which is just another useful index.

The last bit of advice is that you should include both the part number and keywords in the electronic file name. How to handle revisions and versions is trickier, but if you plan to use a PDM system, keep them out of the file name and deal with it some other way.

RE: Drawing numbering system

This is an interesting approach. What I have noticed about the various systems in place is that there are two part numbers involved.
One is a catalogue number for any given stock part which the sales rep might use to describe it for an order. It is familiar to anyone who evere speced a valve or cylinder for example.
The other is a sequential build number for that part which is simply a factory control number used to provide manufacturing instructions.
Catalogue numbers are unique for a given design as each one produces a discreet design. Build numbers can be duplicates but it does not matter.
A screw catalogue number might have only certain designs associated with build numbers, so not every possible screw gets documented, only the ones needed in production.
You could call this a part number and use it for the file name as well. Then you use custom properties to link to the catalogue number.
This is just one of many ways to control production.
--
Crashj

RE: Drawing numbering system

We use a 7-digit part number scheme where I work. We also name drawings and the associated parts/assemblies the same, i.e. 1234567.SLDXXX is the file name for the drawing and prt/asm. We also use a part number generator (in MS Access) which allows us to reserve or assign single part numbers or in bulk. Thinking more about the problem being discussed I see two possible solutions if you were to use a simple non-significant numbering scheme as we do. 1.) Use a simple number generator like we do with fields for part number, description, supplier, etc. Whatever you want to store and once it's in the database you can then query the database for the information you're looking for.  2.) Enter all your necessary information into the SWX drawing and then create a macro to capture it and save it in a database. Either of these solutions should be easy to do and each has its pros and cons.

In any case I think you'll find that you're trying to do something with a tool that it's not ment to do...be an ERP/PDM/PLM system.  The information is stored in the file itself with no means of easily querying for it, which is why you’re trying to create an elaborate naming scheme for your SWX files. The problem isn’t how to name the drawings/parts/assemblies, it’s how do I know what I’m looking at/for. I honestly think you're going to want to have this information outside of the SWX files themselves and let some other software control the myriad of specifics on particular drawings/parts/assemblies.

K.I.S.S. – Keep It Simple Stupid (one of our VP’s favorite lines).

PS - we do use SmarTeam.

Kevin Carpenter
CAD Systems Specialist
Invacare Corp.

RE: Drawing numbering system

Kevin,

What you describe (part number generator) is something I’ve always wanted to do.

Unfortunately I’ve always worked within a company that didn’t have the smarts to go that route.

I did however get involved in a project where I had to learn how to build an Access database, and then move data in and out with Visual Basic.

You are so right when you said that “I think you’ll find that you’re trying to do something with a tool that it’s not meant to do. . .”

If all you are doing is create an indexing system to find stuff (and not keep track of all the cross-references) then it would be fine.  Way back in my AutoCad/AutoLisp days, I built some powerful tools that prompted the user to fill in all of the title block information when ever a drawing with a border was started.

Back in those days, all you had were drawings.  I had an epihiny when I realized that a CAD file (with ‘zero-thickness’ lines positioned with 13 digit accuracy) was an idealized model of a part.

With Solid Modeling, the idealized model of a part has become so much more complicated.  It’s a better model, but it isn’t a drawing, and if more than one part is included, it’s no longer an idealized model of a part; it’s an idealized model of the relationships of parts.

What I think we need is something similar to the ‘title block’ approach.  When ever a new SolidWorks file is created, provide the user (if they want) with a set of attributes to define/fill out.  Then make use of those attributes by building an index.

ERP/PDM/PLM systems do many, many things.  When I was in school, I worked for a company that developed a document management system called ARMS – Automated Records Management System.  The system involved many, many, technologies – from computers to networks to storage systems to imaging systems (it was one of the reasons Nuclear Power Plants cost so much!).  I will never forget the day that one of the architects of the system waved me over and showed me a document.  It was a simple description of an index.  This system architect drove home to me that fact that this very complicated system pivoted around the index.  It was the key, he said, for a user in Baltimore, Maryland, being able to call up an image of a memo generated by an inspector in Diablo Canyon, California, describing the results of an inspection of a weld in a pipe, stored in some unknown third location..

The system, as sophisticated as it was in its day, could not function without a simple means for everyone using it to find what they were looking for.  The system handled about 300 million records!
K.I.S.S. also stands for – Keep It Simple, Smart

The moral is that it doesn’t matter if you are looking at a memo, spreadsheet, model, part or assembly (or an image drawn on the back of an envelope).  They are all records, and they all should have one thing in common – a unique identifier that can be used as the pivot point for an index.

John

RE: Drawing numbering system

I'm setting up PDM/Works following the advice from this and a few other threads which seems most appropriate for our company. I'd appreciate it if someone would clarify a few points.

1. If we use PDM/Works, should we also have this external database to query for part numbers or does PDM/Works take on this task?

2. Does anyone have a macro they'd be willing to share to automatically export fields from SW/PDMW to an external database?

kcarpenter wrote:
I see two possible solutions if you were to use a simple non-significant numbering scheme as we do. 1.) Use a simple number generator like we do with fields for part number, description, supplier, etc. Whatever you want to store and once it's in the database you can then query the database for the information you're looking for.  2.) Enter all your necessary information into the SWX drawing and then create a macro to capture it and save it in a database.

RE: Drawing numbering system

I would share our fabulous part/drawing numbering system with you, but it has been stinking up the place for over 20 years now and I still get the technicolor yawns over it occasionally.

What I am really getting at is you are on the right track spending some effort to get it right first time.  Stupid little issues with this can really leave teeth marks in the sit-upon later. I encourage you to do some test simulations before you commit.

John Richards Sr. Mech. Engr.
Rockwell Collins Flight Dynamics

There are only 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't.

RE: Drawing numbering system

All,
My 2 cents is that you should never build logic into a number. A number is just a number. I know some of you might disagree with that, but that's how I feel. Just like kcarpenter said, K-I-S-S. I also know a lot of us our lock into the part sysems at work, but if you are starting from scratch, keep it simple.

Now building logic into the way to keep track of the drawings, parts and assemblies.....that's a different story. I spent a lot of hours re-doing the custom properties in our SW templates. I even went as far as having a custom properties for each and every "Next Assy" and "Used On" blocks in our drawings. That way you can search where that part is being used in our products using PDMWorks.

I know that a lot of you do not have a PDM, PLM or Smart Team, but you have to plan for the future. Keep a basic system upfront and have everyone follow it. Sooner or later you'll be on a somekind of PDM system. This will allow you to have a smoother transition when you convert your files over.

One more thing....never use the revision letter of a drawing, part or an assembly in your filename. Your asking for trouble down the road. Food for thought...

Best,

macduff

RE: Drawing numbering system

I agree with macduff.  A "non-tracking" partnumbering system is best in the end.  Ours is a hybrid!!!   Problems you encounter with tracking numbering systems are you tend to you run out of numbers much quicker.  Also when new "classes" of parts show up or worse - you decide to break some exisiting ones down to fine granulation - lots of confusions start.  And when someone uses the wrong part number coding you can never find the part again!!  (Believe me they will - and you will have gray areas too.)

John Richards Sr. Mech. Engr.
Rockwell Collins Flight Dynamics

There are only 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't.

RE: Drawing numbering system

Great thread on an ever-present problem....Now for my 2-cents.

I am of the opinion that the less information that is encoded in a part/drawing number, the more a company has to rely on "tribal knowledge" to identifty a part/drawing that is known to exist, but whose timeliness has faded. In extreme cases, it is easier to (reluctantly) recreate the part than invest the time to find it. As absurd as it sounds, I have seen this happen.

And to take things a step further...When you couple a random part number system with no nomenclature standard, terminal velocity is quickly obtained.

I do not, however, believe that a part/drawing number system should contain infinite detail. Just enough so that: given a part number, the system and sub-system should be readily identifiable, and, knowing the system/sub-system to which a part is related, the search parameters are significantly narrow enough to ensure the part will be quickly found.

RE: Drawing numbering system

PakRat...I have to ask when is enough enough (as in descriptive part numbers)? I mean where do you draw the line in making your part number descriptive enough to allow the users to quickly identify what they're looking for/at?

We have 850+ different types of screws (then throw in nuts, washers, etc.) we use at my company.  How does someone differentiate 60+ 1/4-XX screws?  Head type, length, coatings, material, UNC, UNF, etc.  It's impossible to create a numbering scheme that would allow a person to quick identify a specific type of fastener they're looking for.  M$ would have to quadruple their current 255 character limit on filenames.

I know you're thinking, "I said, 'I do not, however, believe that a part/drawing number system should contain infinite detail.'"  But what good is it if I did narrow it down to those 60+ screws?  I still need to open up every one of them to find the one I need.  Also, you still need to train new personnel on the "system/sub-system". Hence the use of a part number generator/database. Anyone can take a simple class or read a book and create a useful MS Access generator/database. Point previously said new person to the generator/database and search away.

My point is still the same, and that is you almost certainly need to store this information outside of the file itself.

Kevin Carpenter
CAD Systems Specialist
Invacare Corp.

RE: Drawing numbering system

3
I can't resist.  Significant part numbers are a nightmare, plain and simple.  I would avoid it at all costs.  This is such a long thread, but someone pointed out that computers are dominant these days and you can have an non-significant p/n and a significant drawing number, material code and so forth.  Why?  Any p/n that is over 10 characters promotes error, as stated before.  Also, why put your company at risk by giving a customer a BOM with significant p/n?  For example, your p/n is E265B70 - and description is o-ring.  Well, that must be a -265 o-ring of Buna 70 duro.  Customer buys that from someone else, it fails, and he expects you to cover costs?  HE may not do it on purpose, but it happens.  Most customers shouldn't know more than they need to.

For those really interested in this, do a search for a Technical Research Report entitled "Non-Significant, Self-Validated Part Identification Numbers" by G. Harhalakis, M.E. Bohse and B.J. Davies (ISR T.R. 86-15).  This was published by the Institute For Systems Research and their website is http://www.isr.umd.edu

If you want to hear nightmares about significant p/n, let me know.  Also, sequential drawing numbers are a joke (a habit it seems many older companies used).

RE: Drawing numbering system

kcarpenter:

My answer is no answer. You have to define what "enough detail" is in your specific case. I was being purposefully vague because this is a very subjective topic, and, in the end, a sucessful system is the one that meets the company's minimum part/drawing number requirements without tying the hands of future generations.

I will add one other consideration. One must consider the needs of the company's ERP/MRP system. For most, this is the life's-blood of the company that allows for meaningful production planning and inventory control. The part numbering system must consider that information is required by the MRP system. A poorly implemented MRP stsem is an ugly thing.

Case in point...My last company used a part/drawing numbering system that made no distinction between the same part produced from different materials (galvanived or cold rolled), size (18GA or 20GA) or color. Of course inventory was a mess and when they tried to turn on the MRP system, maximun chaos was achieved in short order. A simple statement of the obvious (to most) is that different things can't have the same name.

And just to complete the picture, their numbering system was 40yxxx where x indicated the sheet size of the drawing and yyy was a sequential number starting at 1 and headed to infinity. Furthermore, any dash numbers (opposite hands and variations) were tabularized on the face of the drawing and suffixed to the root drawing number.

Faced with these problems, I designed a new numbering system that worked with the 15 digit limitation of the MRP system. It followed the pattern: PP-MMxxx-DDD-ZZ where PP indicated the system (about 25 standard systems), MM indicated the subsystem (average of 50), xxx was a sequentially assigned number with 000 reserved for the top-level product drawings. DDD indicated the dash numbers and ZZ carried the material/finish code.

I know this may seem overly complex, but when you consider that the company was extremely vertically integrated (coils in the back door, finished product out the front), this system met the following needs:

- Could identify WIP in various stages.
- Could handle the standard product lines.
- Could handle minor variations to the standard product line (custom colors).
- Could handle specials (I won't bore you with those details).
- Met the requirements of the MRP system: could handle a highly-optioned product line and drive from the configurator to a dedicated BOM.
- Allowed all work-content to be captured (very important).

I doubt this numbering system would work for anyone else. I detail it simply to demonstrate that its is the result of examining the the company's primary needs.

Likewise, how you subdivide your 850+ collection of hardware is something I would be ill-qualified to address. Keep it simple, but keep it in balance. Also, don't worry about how everyone will adapt to a new numbering system. If they see that it makes sense and is a positive for the company, they will adapt.

Good luck.

RE: Drawing numbering system

Quote (macduff):

...never use the revision letter of a drawing, part or an assembly in your filename. Your asking for trouble down the road.
I remember how nice it was working for companies who spent time outside of quadrant one (urgent, important), but I am with a company now that doesn't encourage taking the time to sharpen the saw because there's too much wood to cut.  Believe it or not, we don't even have a MRP system here, which I find nearly impossible to work without.

We don't (and may never) have the luxury of a PDM system and 98% of the drawings here are old AutoCAD drawings that aren't even to scale (original regime scaled the parts to fit the sheet rather than scale the sheet to fit the parts - another result of lack of training).  When I was brought in here just over 3 years ago to be the Design Engineer, I also brought in SolidWorks, but it's almost exclusively used for new product development - not the 100's of constantly evolving old designs.

Even though I have a ton of background with databases (compiled many with Clipper almost 20 years ago), I really don't have the time to create and/or maintain one to keep track of the SW file properties like Author, Description, Revision, and Product.  What I've done instead is an ad-hoc system where I DO include the part number, revision, and very basic description in a long filename for parts and assemblies, while using just the basic number and revision for drawings.

While I'll concur that it's frequently on the virge of getting out of hand and difficult to manage with multiple users, I really haven't figured out a better way to keep track of revision history and design evolvement than including the revision in the filename.  In the design process, I must be able to branch out from a given base point of each part into several variations simultaneously before settling on a single "upgrade" path.  I'm wide open for suggestions on how to accomplish this without including differentiating information in my filenames.

Thanks,

Tim

RE: Drawing numbering system

(OP)
Dear Folks;

I have read with great interest all the comments people have made about part numbering systems. I wanted to share some more information here because many people have brought up MRP systems in addition to PDM and I think we’ve got 3 separate threads going at once. Let’s try an make it 4.

One thing that cannot be overlooked is the usefulness of a good standardized bill of material. Even without an MRP system, a good bill can eliminate much confusion. Back when I was involved with designing cartoners and other packaging machinery, our company had a good standard bill of material. Given a customer order, a designer could practically build an entire cartoner by checking off standard parts lists in a bill of material. Should he need a new assembly he would create a new parts list, which would be tacked on to all the existing checked off lists under the machine number.

Every day designers would give me their new parts lists and I would update the standard bill of material when time permitted. After many lists were created and indexed it became obvious where duplication was occurring and the designers were encouraged to use existing parts lists. This made it easy to use and reuse standard parts rather than creating something new. A word processor was the only office automation used to maintain the bill.

The bill of material is what drives every MRP system. It is said that in order to achieve proper function, bill of material accuracy must exceed 98%in an MRP system. Any less and you just get scads of work orders printed out for stuff you don’t need. Personally, I feel the idea of a unique, non-significant number is still best. This is also true for the basic identifier of any part in an MRP system.

Many have mentioned the use of numbering systems with fasteners. MRP pundits will tell you that nuts and bolts, o-rings and clevis pins don’t need to be inventoried or classified with an MRP system. Regardless of whether they have differing materials or head types they do not represent a significant dollar value when compared to high value cast and machined parts. Nor do they usually have very long lead times. An estimator, purchasing agent or junior draftsman can review assemblies released to the shop for net requirements and have them in stock long before the higher level assemblies require them.

One way to control fasteners is with just-in-time kanban based inventory control such as the 2 bin system. 2 bins of screws are kept one behind the other in a rack, both are shrink wrapped. The moment the back bin is brought out and the shrink wrap broken, that’s the time to reorder. Only one careful individual is required to prevent stock outs. No one has to worry about getting min/max quantities and reorder points into the MRP system.

I still think the best way to proceed is with unique non-significant numbers. It’s been 17 years now and I can still remember a lot of the part numbers out of the old bill of material. Cant say the same about some of the vendors Air Cylinder or Valve part numbers though….. was it 75-AX-fghte=28vac-!!!^&(*****) or something like that ?


Best regards,

Adrian Dunevein
www.aaadrafting.com

“K.B.O.” – Winston Churchill

RE: Drawing numbering system

TZellers, I do want to hear nightmares about significant part numbers?

RE: Drawing numbering system

Netshop21,
    I agree with Adrian.
    We used significant part numbers until our last layoff. Now we have no one to maintain the system. We have switch to non-significant part numbers. I have worked for over 10 companies in the past. Some companies had significant part numbers and some without significant part numbers.
    I was looking for a filter that goes into the exhaust port on an air value. I found it in electrical filters after many minutes. Now we have 3 places to look.  Miscellaneous, air filters and electrical filters. By the way our miscellaneous numbers are full. I believe the reason that significant part numbers are such a problem is the fact that the managers almost always hire a documentation clerk to assign part numbers. Only one place I worked hired a component engineer, all the rest could not tell the difference between a diode and a resistor. The solution from the management was to make rules. The engineers are responsible to make sure there are no duplications. Just try to get 9 different engineers and designers to standardize names. To get a significant part number system to work, you have to teach 9 different engineers the workings of the system, not just one person. Management makes one component engineer responsible. He quits after 6 years, the new guy does not think like the last one. What to do? Non-significant part numbers is the way to go, anyone can put the next part at the end of the list. With computers we can search for manufactures numbers for duplicates. We can sort numbers anyway we need too.

Bradley

RE: Drawing numbering system

Bradley, I agree with you, non-significant part numbers is the way to go. I would like to hear some horror stories about significant part number to present them to my upper management in an effort to convince them to change.

We are an automation company and the numbering system we are using right now is:

1234.5.66.77.88.999

where: 1234 - project number
         5 - system number
         66 - cell number
         77 - station number
         88 - subassy number
         999 - detail number
All subassy numbers have detail number 000
All stations numbers have subassy number 00 and detail number 000 and so on.

RE: Drawing numbering system

netshop21,
If I may quote from the young kids at our church; “That’s so old school”. The reason I say that, is because your numbering system is very similar to the system I used when I first started in the 1970’s. Before computers, we had to do something. The system worked great until we started using parts from project 1234 on project 4321and on project 5596 and on project 5569. Then we made a rule all parts on a project had to have the project number. Which meant 4 drawings. We ended up with 4 exact same plates with different numbers. Then we found a mistake in a hole location. We changed 3 but forgot the fourth plate. A year later we order 10 of the fourth plate and found that we had to rework the parts. Back then we had no choose. Today we have a choose.

Bradley

RE: Drawing numbering system

OK....I'm going to share our PN generator to those who wish to see/use it as an EXAMPLE, nothing more. It is a non-significant generator which can create/store PN, Descrip., ECN num., user name.  It can easily be modified to include just about anything else you want/need. Show it your bosses, co-workers, etc.

If you would like me to email you the MS Access 2000 DB (quit small once the data was removed) please send me an email at: kcarpenter_removespam_@invacare.com

I need to do something useful here to help. :)

Kevin Carpenter
CAD Systems Specialist
Invacare Corp.

RE: Drawing numbering system

Our part numbering system is primarily 7 digits, but can be as long as 13.  Want to see the madness?  Here goes:

Digit 1 is the Pump Type and Material.  So, for our model 1000 in Noryl, the digit is 1.  For our model 3000 in Noryl is digit 3.  1 for 1000 and 3 for 3000 – makes sense, right?  Well then we added polypro as a material for the 1000.  So, what to do.  How about a 2 – that’s not taken.  If metric ports were required and Noryl was used, let’s use M.  What happens if we want metric and polypro?  Haven’t done that YET.

Digit 2 is the Impeller.  We have standard numbered impellers.  So a #1 impeller would be represented by 1 in this slot.  2 for 2, 3 for 3 and so on.  The material of the impeller is supposed to follow the pump material, but polypro doesn’t chemically bond well, so we often need to mix and match (and no, there is no digit for that!).  Now, if the customer wants a trimmed impeller, that would require a “T” to follow the impeller digit.  Whoops, that slips over into the 3rd slot, but let’s forget that for a moment.  If the customer wants a semi-open impeller, use add an ‘S’ after the impeller digit.  If they wanted a trimmed semi-open, it would follow that a TS or ST would be added.  #9 is the catch all special impeller.  Now which digit are we on again?

Digit 3 is the Motor HP and # of poles.  It goes from A (1/6HP and 2 pole) to S (3HP 4 pole) and even a T (1/10 HP 2 pole).  There is also a 9 for special and a 0 (zero) for pump end only (or if supplied with a power frame and no motor).  There’s also a spot in the 9th spot, but we’re jumping ahead.

This goes on and on.  The elastomers are supposed to follow the mechanical seal spec, but don’t always.  What started as an easy way (pre-computers, btw) to work with p/n’s became a nightmare to figure out.  Plus, why give your competitors a keycode to decifer your part structure?  The moral of the story: you can never guess where your company is going to wind up, so why try with significant p/n structures?

I worked for a division of I-R that used the non-significant numbering system illustrated in the white paper I listed before.  It was IDP, a pump company.  They were a merger of I-R and Dresser Industries.  Dresser had bought out Worthington.  Now, there are 3 companies over 100 years old, each with their own system.  So, corporated developed a CCN (corporate number) to identify all of the unique parts, as there were some same numbers between the older companies.  How about a part with 2 or 3 part numbers?  Moral of that story: no matter what you do, it ain’t bullet-proof.

RE: Drawing numbering system

Note: I'm stuck in the significant p/n he!! because our MRP doesn't sort by drawing number.

Also, I create a self-validating part number system in Excel, but went overboard.  The method of generating the parity numbers (in my case the last 2 digits of an 8 digit part number) is probably too complex for a MRP system to generate on its own, so don't get too fancy if you do go that route.  Beware of your system's limitations before you blaze a path for p/n changes.....

RE: Drawing numbering system

Keeping track of a semi significant part number system becomes more difficult as the number of parts increases. We have 8.8 GB of engineering data in 22,000 files, the Excel tracking takes up 184 MB in 224 files. Even though we tried to make navigation and finding files simple, it is now difficult, and getting worse by the part number.

RE: Drawing numbering system

Ed, exactly why all parts classification should be done in a database as attributes and part numbers should be non-intelligent.

Attributes can be easily changed & corrected. You are usually stuck with a part number once used.

Jason Capriotti
ThyssenKrupp Elevator

RE: Drawing numbering system

Gildashard,
You are correct in that this information should be in a database, Excel is a flat file database and difficult to search, PDM software use relational databases, but relational databases do not work well for product knowledge. What I find the most difficult is remembering what something is called, what someone else calls what you are looking for, and what you should call what you are designing. The index in McMaster is a perfect example, some items are listed several times by different names.

RE: Drawing numbering system

Ed,
What you really need is a set of standard descriptions to help define you parts/asms.  In doing this everyone will use the same methodology in naming their designs AND it will make finding those files in your database much easier.

Here's how we standardized our descriptions:

ASM, AAA BBB ...   
AAA What type of assembly?
BBB What type of (AAA) assembly?
  (Add as much description as needed to describe assembly.)
Example: ASM, WALKER HD

WLDMT, AAA BBB ...   
AAA What type of weldment?
BBB What type of (AAA) weldment?
  (Add as much description as needed to describe weldment.)
Example:  WLDMT, FRAME FRONT
               WLDMT, UPRIGHT FRONT W/HEADTUBE RT
               CLR WLDMT, UPRIGHT FRONT W/HINGE PLATES RT

We also have abbreviation standards (as you could already see), and here are a few of those:

Mandatory:
ASSEMBLY - ASM
ADJUSTABLE - ADJ
COLD DRAWN STEEL - CDS
COLD ROLLED STEEL - CRS
CROSSBRACE - X-BRACE
CROSSMEMBER - X-MEMBER or X-MBR
DRAWN OVER MANDREL - DOM
ELECTRIC WELD - EW
EXTRUSION - EXTR
FEET - FT
HARDWARE - HDW

Optional:
BEARING - BRG
BLACK - BLK
BOLT CIRCLE - BC
BONDED COMPOSITE FABRIC - BCF
BOTTOM - BTM
BRACKET - BRKT
HANDLE - HDL
HARNESS - HARN
HEADREST - HDRST
HEAT TREAT - HT
HEATSHRINK - H/SHRK

Kevin Carpenter
CAD Systems Specialist
Invacare Corp.

RE: Drawing numbering system

Kcarpenter,
We have a lot of information in our 7 alpha-numeric scheme. Not to the level your are proposing, but adequate for most needs. The description information is in Excel, but locating and using this information becomes more difficult as more similar items are added. New or casual users say the system is difficult to use to locate items with multiple definitions. Items that fit more than one category are the most painful, when we designed the delineation scheme, it seemed good. Now 7 years later some items seem out of place, or need additional information included. Longer part numbers with more information only make the task worse. We tried that with 2D CAD.
I have been looking at using an object oriented database to store and display the information as a 3D tree map. The current work load does not allow for work in this area.

RE: Drawing numbering system

Here is my company's part-numbering system, but I have to add we normally build 1 machine of a kind and rarely have the option of copying units from an older machine. So usually we don't use parts twice:

04AA01-00   Assembly
04AA01-Skel   Skeleton
04AA01-01   Part01
^ ^ ^  ^    ^
| | |  |    Description
| | |  Pos-Nr of the part
| | Unit-Nr
| Machine-Nr
Year of Design

or:
04AA01-AA   Purchase Part

But I don't think we have the problems you guys are describing above. BTW, If we can use a unit an another machine. We copy all the parts and give them their new unique number.

Grtz, Bouke

RE: Drawing numbering system

Bouke,
The service, and inventory people must hate your part numbering scheme. If you have to inventory spare parts, a change in numbering methodology may reduce the money tied up in inventory substantially. Do you do this to fasteners, bearings, and plumbing items?

RE: Drawing numbering system

Like I said, We only build machines onces or twice. So I can't say our company has inventory or service people. What we do have is an electrical,software and mechanical design departments and an realisation-department. The mostly used fasteners we keep their appropiate closet and the other purchase parts used in the machines are ordered in the right quantity's.

So like I said, I don't think we have the problems you guys are describing.

RE: Drawing numbering system

I worked on a company that used the following naming system... I'm sure it's not that perfect naming system but it was the best i worked with, we had just a few problems with it.

9999-99-99

The four first digits are just a sequential and unique numbering system, the tow middle ones are thre to indicate the if the part is welded in anoter one, it's 00 for the welded assy and 01, 02, 03 and so on for the parts in this assy, or just 01 if it's a independent part. The last two are the revision number. Every fabricated part or assy is saved with an unique number with those rules. The drawings are saved with the same name of its referenced part or assy. Every project has a folder on the server and its parts are saved into a PARTS folder in this folder. When the revision is increase we just have a macro that do the bored work of saving the drawings and all the references as needed. The revised parts are archived in a dead file folder. The mounting assys are saved separetely of the fabricated parts and assys, with no special naming system, ie PACKING UNIT, HOT MELT APPLICATION, FORMING UNIT...
For comercial parts we save them with the manufacturer code like DNC-32-XX-PPV, SKF3201... all in a library folder. Then we have lots of configurations into all of them and each config has an User Specific Name to appear in the BOM, this number is the naming system of the parts, like C9999, EF9999, P9999, and the first one or two alpha characters means the tipe of the library item, like component, fixing elements... We chose this method for comercial parts just because they should have configs and we can't use more than one name to the same file... a windows limitation yet LOL Then we have a database with all codes of the manufactured and comercial parts with all information about this part, even the info that is in the custom info, so if a client needs a spare part just give us the code and we track it by the database... I was having some ideas to some little improvements but I changed the company... The biggest problem with this naming system is the limitation of just 9999 diferent parts... We almost reached this number in less than 2 years... But it's easy to solve, there's a lot of easy ways, like changing for something like that: X999-99-99. This way we double the possible variations.

RE: Drawing numbering system

The numbering system that I feel is very easy to work with as an engineer is one that has a significant 2 or 3 digit prefix used as a family indicator, a 4 digit non-significant "body", and a 2 or 3 digit suffix (aka "dash number").  For clarity, hyphens are used to separate the prefix, the body, and the suffix (e.g. 979-0123-005).

Two or three digit prefix:  The first digit of the prefix can identify an item as an end item, sub-assembly, or piece part (general delineation), while the remaining 1 or 2 digits can indicate a product family or generic part (more specific delineation).

Four (or 3 or 5) digit body:  This non-significant number is sequentially assigned as needed in order to delineate part numbers, ensuring that each has a unique identification number.

Two or three digit suffix (often termed the "dash number"):  This number is used to tabulate part numbers described on the same drawing.  If three digits are used you will have more tabulation flexibility.  For example, the first digit could be used to indicate the condition of a part at a non-inventoried intermediate step (like if it's sent out for electropolishing).

It's important to note that the drawing number in this system is NOT the same as the part number, but is a subset of it.  This provides for multiple configurations (lengths, sizes, combinations, etc.) on a drawing without having to use wildcard digits in the drawing number (i.e. 979-0123-XXX).  It has been my experience that in a wildcard system, invariably someone will create a part number with a pre-existing "mask" that requires its own drawing.  The company I work for now has that problem running rampant, and simply knowing the part number is often not enough to lead to the drawing it's defined on - that wastes time.

Tim

RE: Drawing numbering system

I am using PDMWorks 2004 with solidworks 2004 SP3, and would like to develop a convenient way to generate a 6-digit non-significant part number for all the files I create.
 
I'm curious to know if you've got a solution to the following problem: In PDM works, upon checking in a new model, the user is asked to assign a part number.  He's given complete freedom to define what this is.  In fact - you can assign the same part number to totally different parts.  (I made 2 parts and checked them both in as part "000001" - in the same project directory in PDMWors!)  This is inconvenient because it could lead to confusion down the road.  If you always adhered to a part # creation method which kept track of used, unique #'s, this problem could be avoided.  Ideally, this would tie in at the # creation stage during new part check-in.

kcarpenter - I wouldn't mind trying out your Access file - I tried writing you but your email seemed invalid.

RE: Drawing numbering system

abeschneider,
I'm sure you know this but remember to remove "_removespam_" from the email address I listed.  I've sent out several copies of the DB to others without an issues.  Please give it another try, or post your email addy and I'll send it to you.

Kevin Carpenter
CAD Systems Specialist
Invacare Corp.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources