NUMBERING SYSTEMS 8

[treelovinghippy]

Hey guys, need some opinions/ advice! Im transferring all drawings from CAD to solidworks and also implementing a new numbering system. The products are agricultural attachments such as buckets etc for a bulldozer. So what i have been using so far is a nine digit part numbering system. For example, the first 3 dig represent the product such as a bucket, rake, fork, etc. The next 3 dig represent the part of the product such as a side panel, gusset, etc and the final 3 dig represent the variant of the part. Whats your opinion on this? Also need to establish numbers for full assemblies/ products and also drawing numbers. Any opinions are very welcome.

 

[macduff]

Hi,
Do a search in this forum. There's a lot threads on this subject with great advice. My thoughts...a number is just a number, try not to build too logic into it.

Best,

Colin Fitzpatrick (aka Macduff)
Mechanical Designer
Solidworks 2010 SP 3.1
Dell 490 XP Pro SP 2
Xeon CPU 3.00 GHz 3.00 GB of RAM
nVida Quadro FX 3450 512 MB
3D Connexion-SpaceExplorer

 

[JMirisola]

As macduff said, this has been covered quite a bit here. However, because it is a pet peeve of mine, let me pull out my soapbox.

A part number should be nothing more than a placeholder in your system. It is a unique identifier; nothing more, nothing less. The minute you start to assign "meaning" to the number, you're setting yourself up for problems. First, you'll have to supply people with a cipher so they know what all the numbers mean. Second, at some point in the future your "smart" part numbers will become a PITA. Inevitably, you'll come across a part that is sort of like this one, and/or this one, and you'll end up having to create some hybridized number. Crap, how do I define *this* part?
If you utilize a part number as only a place holder, and let the part's description identify it, your life will become simpler. Use a description convention that's simple and easy to search:
Noun, adjective, further descriptor.
Screw, HHC, 1/4-20 x 1
Pump, Hydraulic, 20gpm
Plate, Steel, 1.5" THK

Yes, this is my opinion, but it's one shared by many. I've had the experience of working at a company that had a smart part number system; three systems, actually. They kept modifying them because they kept breaking. Thankfully, my job was to fix the problem. I put in a dumb p/n convention using a 5-digit number. No more problem. Did people piss and moan because they "knew" the old systems? You bet. But, just like they learned the old systems, they learned the new.

[/rant]



Jeff Mirisola, CSWP
Design Manager/Senior Designer
M9 Defense
My Blog

 

[treelovinghippy]

Appreciate the feedback, thank you

 

[GregTirevold]

I will agree that a "significant" part number is tempting to organizational-minded people like engineers but it is a poisoned fruit. I used to work for a company that had a system like this and it was a nightmare after a couple of years. It basically boils down to a maintenance issue. These numbers look like they'd be "set and forget" but I've never seen it work that way in practice.

You ALWAYS end up faced with some part that doesn't seem to fit the rules you established and then you have to invent an exception. Get more than person entering part numbers and you end up with all sorts of exceptions based on personal preference and it goes downhill from there.

Let numbers be numbers and text be text and you will thank us all later on.

 

[ewh]

While smart numbers are not popular in general, depending on the industry they can and do work.
We build to print as well as design composite components for many customers, and our numbering system reflects which customer and which program the part is for. It is further broken down by type, such as tooling or work instruction.
Admittedly, most companies that I have worked for would have trouble with including any intelligence in their numbering system, but there are uses for it, especially if you don't try to make it too smart.
As with most things in life, YMMV.

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

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

There is no one-size-fits-all solution. No system is without flaws. If a flawless system existed, everyone would be using it ... but not everyone agrees upon what constitutes a flaw.

One of the problems with a non-significant number system is knowing the next available number ... especially in a multi-user environment where the parts could be scattered across multiple locations. There are several 'remedies' for this ranging from an automatic number assignment utility to keeping a separate Access/Excel/Text file/list accessible to all.

Many people use a semi-significant or project-oriented system (my preference).
eg. Project_number (semi-significant)-Part_number (non-significant), where the project could be 123 and the part number is 12345, so the full part number would be 123-12345. If all the parts related to a project are kept within a single project folder, the next available number is readily seen. No separate listing is required.

Ultimately, you will have to select a system which most closely suits your companies policies and needs.

 

[JMirisola]

I should probably clarify my statement (rant) a bit. I speak from a manufacturing standpoint where parts tend to be more stagnant and are can be used in multiple assemblies. In an R&D environment, or a custom design shop, my statement probably isn't as valid.

@CBL - How do you handle parts that are used on multiple projects, or does this not occur with what you do?



Jeff Mirisola, CSWP
Design Manager/Senior Designer
M9 Defense
My Blog

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

If a part (or sub-assy) becomes common across different products it is moved into a 'Standard Parts' folder, and renamed accordingly.

 

[ewh]

Same here, usually involving tooling; part is renumbered to reflect general useage.

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

 

[ctopher]

I agree with the others.

Also to clarify, "Im transferring all drawings from CAD to solidworks..."

SolidWorks is CAD.

Chris
SolidWorks 10 SP4.0
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[SnowCrash]

The significant part number is sort of like a catalog number so other people can recognize the family it is in. Make that a property of the part, not the file name you see in assemblies.

--
Hardie "Crashj" Johnson
SW 2010 SP 2.1
HP Pavillion Elite HPE

 

[fcsuper]

Smart numbers are dumb, mmkay. Dumb numbers are smarrt.

If you have even a lousy PLM, smart numbers are going to have their issues and people will argue over where this or that part goes. You'll waste more time in the very first "where does this go" smart number argument than you'll ever save in the lifetime of your company by using smart numbers. This is because the PLM itself tells you what the part is without the need to use part numbers to define them. In fact, smart numbers can slow down PLMs by creating more work in their creation for all the various types of parts.

If you have no PLM at all, then you may find smart numbers useful at a key to how parts are categorized. This can be by project, part type or both.

Just my two cents.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[ArtL]

The easyest Place I ever worked, as far as part #'s go, had a system of sequential "dumb" numbers. I would rough design a project, get approval to continue, then check out a block of the next sequential numbers that correspond with the amount of parts projected for project.Reuseable #'s such as fasteners, and vendor parts had there own set of #'s and directorys. As previously stated, Smart numbers will bite you in the butt down the road.

 

[Updraft]

The only place I've worked where we had true "smart" part numbers was for the military aircraft business. The numbers could tell you a lot, but then they also had folks who's only job was to assign part numbers.

- - -Updraft

 

[gwubs]

Go non-significant numbers - you won't regret it

 

[treelovinghippy]

thanks for all the feedback folks, this is my first time going through the process and i appreciate your experience

 

[treelovinghippy]

http://www.lib.umd.edu/drum/bitstream/1903/4441/1/TR_86-15.pdf

interesting read