Part numbering conventions - what's the best practice in aerospace?

[chrebmo]

Hi everyone,

I was having a discussion with an aerospace partner recently about part numbering conventions in PDM systems, and it got me thinking - how do different organizations approach this challenge?
One approach I've seen is a hierarchical naming scheme that embeds mission/project context directly in the filename structure, something like:MISSION_PARTNO_NAME_REV.SUBREV
For example: PROJ-A_4301-01-00_ReactionWheels_01 or PROJ-A_32010200_PCBBottom_01.01

Where the 8-digit part numbers create a hierarchy (4000s = platform, 3200s = power, etc.) and COTS parts get handled separately.

It seems like aerospace has some unique challenges compared to other engineering sectors - the mission-critical nature, long product lifecycles, and traceability requirements. I'm wondering if this drives different approaches to part numbering than you'd see in automotive or consumer products.

What approaches have you found work best for your organizations?

Some follow-up thoughts: Do you embed project identifiers directly in part numbers, or rely on the PLM system to manage those relationships? How do you handle COTS integration? Any thoughts on hierarchical vs flat numbering schemes?

Would love to hear about your experiences, especially if you've been through PLM migrations or evolved your naming conventions over time.

Thanks!

 

[Ng2020]

"Do you project identifiers directly in part numbers" yes but as a 1-3 alphanumeric char code.
Some manufacturers use a WBS based part numbering scheme, sothe part number gives some indication of function and locatio . that scheme is my preference.

"handle COTS integration" a whole (dull) textbook could be written on this. assign cots a part number only where specific acceptance tests/inspections are applied (e.g to ascertain configuration and quality). if the cots manufacturer holds the appropriate design approvals for the item (eg tso) then this is not required
Managment of obsolescence is another issue to watch for.

 

[TugboatEng]

Not a fan or alphanumeric. It only introduces additional sources for errors. Stick. To numbers only, the most universal language. Don't do anything sequentially. A fat fingered character should produce a wildly incorrect part. Go ahead with identifiers at the beginning but in the instance of a nut and bolt the bolt should not be ***-****-1000 while the nut is ***-****-1001. No similar part should be 1000 or 1001. Use random number generators.