Drawing numbers and part numbers

[sdra2]

I hope I've submitted this in the right place - seems the most relevant...

I have a simple sounding question - is there a preferred system for numbering drawings and/or parts?

I have in the past used a system where the part number gave information about what the part itself was, another system where the part number gave information about which product it was used on, and another system that gave no information whatsoever and was just a sequential numbering system.

I work for a company that is fairly new, and trying to come up a consistent system that is, if possible, approved or recommended by ISO or other bodies.

Any comments would be welcome!

 

[ewh]

I'm sure that you will get good suggestions here, but this might be a more suitable forum in which to ask: forum781

In a nutshell, dumb numbers are usually best, semi-significant are also good, but avoid complex, boxcar numbers where every digit has it's own meaning.
I don't think ISO cares what numbering system you use, just that you follow one that is documented.

Anyway, check that forum out. There are threads there addressing this very issue.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[MadMango]

See: thread1103-160197

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of these Forums?

 

[KENAT]

This has come up several times both in this forum, as MM linked and also in the forum ewh gives.

In summary, current thinking seems to be that dumb numbering is best. Other information like used on etc. can generally be contained in their own fields as meta data in CAD files, ERP systems etc.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[juergenwt]

May be this will help:

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=32462

 

[fcsuper]

There's a white paper that studied the use of sequential (dumb) numbers versus smart numbers. I think it is actually linked in one of the threads here on eng-tip. Anyway, yeah, dumb numbers are smart, and smart numbers are dumb.

Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

thread559-45542