Universal product naming/numbering?

Say you are building a machine for use in house.

It has a mix of parts that are buy outs.... and a lot
of parts home made in the shop.

What methodology should one use to name or number the
parts.... both buy out and made in shop?

 

You'll get a million contradictory answers to this. Here's what I've
done...

- use generic sequential numbers, maybe with some sort of a prefix to
identify general categories, like 12-34567 where 12 stands for some
classification like purchased parts, manifolds, sheetmetal, made-from,
raw castings, circuit boards, etc. Then the 34567 is just a sequential
number. Use a database, spreadsheet, mrp, erp or pdm to correlate the
sequential number to a description. Don't try to make the whole number
intelligent.

- don't use descriptive filenames. There's a reason why the government
uses a SSN instead of your name. Descriptive names get duplicated,
sequential numbers do not.

- don't put the rev in the filename. I've seen people advocate doing
this. It can be done, but it requires a lot of work to keep it working
right.

- unless parts are really just made for a single project, don't put
project info in the filename. One of two things will happen: you will
wind up with copies of the same part with different names or you will
wind up with parts in a project which have a different project name.

- use custom property fields like "Description" for descriptive names.
Did you know you can show descriptions in the assembly tree instead of
filenames? Did you know you can see the description in the File, Open
dialog?

The filename is for the computer to keep track of things, not for the
user.

The description is for the user.

You can fight the filename/description battle saying "but 12-34567
doesn't mean anything to me, 'mounting bracket' does", but that will
bite you eventually.

Anyway, good luck,

Matt

 

In addition to what he said over the years I've created a library of
Commercially available parts we get from vendors, like Hub City
Gearboxes and the like. For now at least, all those parts are in a their
own respective folder with their OEM part numbers.

Because we don't have a great system I include the OEM part number in
the assembly drawings, because 1) that's the actual part I ordered, and
2) it will be easier years from now for the guy in purchasing to get an
interchangeable part from that number that from a generic 'in-house'
number.

I'd prefer a better system, but we do what we can with what we've got...

2¢

 

Matt's advice is excellent, and Hayduke's also makes sense, but allow me
to disagree slightly and expand a bit as well. I typically DO include
descriptive names in fabricated part/assembly filenames, but only
FOLLOWING a sequential part/drawing number. Matt is quite right that
you're much better off without a part/drawing numbering system that
assigns any special "intelligence" to numbers . . . to do otherwise is
to invite loads and loads of unexpected work, especially when some
meddling manager decides he doesn't agree with your number assignment
and decides he wants the number changed. Such an action, of course,
would affect your next Assembly, the Drawings for both the component AND
next assembly, and your BOM (and thus perhaps also your ERP system). If
drawings are released and change paper is required that doubles or
triples the amount of work. In addition you have to be CERTAIN that you
catch all next Assemblies (and Drawings and BOMs for those next
Assemblies) where the component is used that had its number changed, and
often that's not as simple as using SolidWorks Explorer to find the
"Where Used". You might be surprised how often you'll end up being
asked to change a part/drawing number, or realizing yourself that
somehow the number assigned isn't quite appropriate and "has" to be
changed. It's a losing proposition . . . BIG time.

It's much better and easier to have the number simply be sequential,
possibly starting with some prefix which can indicate the project to
which a unique part belongs, but even that can bite you in the butt if
you use fabricated parts across product lines. But a descriptive name
FOLLOWING the sequential part/drawing number doesn't really hurt
anything -- doesn't affect how filenames are sorted in Windows Explorer
or in an Excel spreadsheet generated from a BOM (etc.); doesn't cause
problems -- but it CAN make it much easier to identify the kind of
component you're dealing with just by looking at the filename. It can
make it much simpler to find things you need without opening Assemblies
or assembly Drawings to figure out what is what.

Likewise for vendor parts, descriptive names FOLLOWING other
designations are useful and don't hurt anything. I typically start with
the vendor's name (e.g., McMaster, Southco, Cherry, Vlier, Swagelok,
etc.) followed by the vendor part number followed by a short descriptive
name (e.g., "o-ring, half-inch OD, sixteenth thk"). As I usually do the
initial sourcing for parts I can almost always remember where I found
the o-ring or fitting or electronic component I used, and thus the
vendor name in the filename is helpful in finding things. If a
purchasing agent wants to second-source the part later there's nothing
to prevent it -- information can even be included in Custom Properties
to identify allowable substitutions -- and the presence of the original
source and part number allows me (or your engineering department) some
control over just how "creative" Purchasing can get with substitutions.
That is to say, when they cross the line of fit/function/reliability
it's a little more obvious and you can a little more easily put a halt
to improper use of substitute parts which aren't good substitutes.

Mark 'Sporky' Stapleton
Watermark Design, LLC
www.h2omarkdesign.com

 

Don't try to make the whole number

This is the big "key" isn't it?

So you can put "some" intelligence in the filename.....
but not very much huh?

Maybe its bets to put no intelligence at all in the
file name at all? Use pure sequential numbers? Or ate
least UNIQUE numbers?

 

Likewise for vendor parts, descriptive names FOLLOWING other

Can you give me an example of your method above?

 

I guess what I'm wondering is if there is some kind of
ISO standard on this UPN thing?

I mean what do the bar code numbers on products you by
tell you? Are they "smart".... or just dumb numbers
hooked up with a database somewhere?

Example,,, is the part name for Crest toothpaste sold
at Walmart the same number as Crest toothpaste at
Kmart? Given its exact same product of course

 

There are reasons for doing sequential (guarantee no duplicates) and
reasons for NOT doing intelligence (stuff Sporkman talked about). The
point is that if you at least have a sequential portion of the filename,
you won't have duplicates, but then if you choose to also put
descriptive info in there too, maybe it will be more user friendly.

My point is that you're better off being clever with the tools and
separating the information. Of course this is WAY easier to do if you
have a PDM system and can search on either filenames or descriptions.

Like I said, there are a lot of conflicting points of view about this
topic, and everyone thinks they're right. If you're deciding a system
that other people are going to use, you'd better grow some thick skin,
cuz SOMEbody ain't gonna like it, which in the end is tragic, but that's
the way it is.

 

Where can one find information on good part numbering
systems?. For instance the DND has part numbers for
everything from spaghetti and meatballs to condoms.
We have a very good part numbering system that
was developed about 29 years ago and still works excellent.
But I haven't seen anything on the net. What do other
companies do?

 

After seeing the mess that "intelligent" numbering schemes create,
several years ago I reached the same conclusion as Sporkman -- a
sequential number followed by a brief description makes the best
filename. A database can find the number instantly, and a mere human
gets a clue from the description. And I do the same with purchased
parts: "McMaster 123456 - Widget"

Art W

 

UPC-A is a 12 digit, numeric symbology used in retail applications.
UPC-A symbols consist of 11 data digits and one check digit. The first
digit is a number system digit that usually represents the type of
product being identified. The following 5 digits are a manufacturers
code and the next 5 digits are used to identify a specific product.

UPC numbers are assigned to specific products and manufacturers by the
Uniform Code Council (UCC). To apply for a UPC number or for more
information, you can contact the UCC at 8163 Old Yankee Road, Suite J,
Dayton, OH 45458 Tel: 937-435-3870

Taken from the following web site:

http://tinyurl.com/9kd9y

Dave

 

I'd like to print out yours and Matt comments onto several hundred
sheets of paper, roll them up take it around to a client of mine and
beat him senseless with it!

The client in question has an “intelligent” numbering system. A custom
program that was developed in house assigns the numbers. There is only
one person that thinks he understands the system. There are always
exceptions—ALWAYS it has become a days worth of work for this person
every week, to issue numbers and mange this system.

Originally everyone was supposed to use the system and get there own
numbers. Now only one person issues the numbers, because the rest of us
continually made mistakes. The irony is, the person who issues the
numbers and “understands” and believes in the system is continually
coming to me and asking me to renumber parts because something needs
tweaking in the system.
ARRRRRRRRRRHGFFGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ---
This is an incredible waste of their money, and then they wonder why a
particular project is taking so long.

OK – I’m off to get a coffee and take a big deep breath.


Regards,

John Layne

Solid Engineering Ltd

 

Yup, yup, I hear ya. The first thing I do when I get with a new client
who wants to know my recommendations is tell them what I think about
unintelligent "intelligent" numbering systems, and 2 out of 3 times they
hear it and ignore it. And 100% of the time that they ignore it they
run into the same problems I told them they'd run into.

In one ear and out the other. What can ya do about people who already
know everything?

'Sporky'

.. . . (clip) . . .

 

Hi There -

The first thing I would ask myself is if you have an asset number for
the machine - Tool Number, Machine Number, Etc. This would be a good
choice for the prefix of the part name/number. What you put after
this prefix is up to you. You could use sequence numbers, detail
numbers or descriptive suffixes.

For example:
112233-Detail1-MountPlate
or
112233-0001
or
112233-MountPlate

The advice offered on using your vendor numbers is good. Like
McMaster511k12_TieWrap.sldprt, molex_44123-00_2PinMaleConnector.sldprt.

What you use internally is up to you. The only things I ask myself
are:

-Is what I am doing easy to understand and maintain?
-Does anyone with half a brain have a fighting chance at figuring what
I did?
-Am I creating a maintenance nightmare for someone, myself included?

Your question is a lot like asking "what color should I paint my
kitchen?" There are no completely right answers and what is right is
very situational. I know that some amongst us are sure that you must
never ever ever paint your kitchen mauve, but perhaps with your
lighting and the drapes that you like, mauve is the only appropriate
answer. Your question about what to do for internal machinery really
depends on what other means record keeping are available (and required)
at your company. What you would do depends on traceability and future
maintenance needs.

The only real failure is having no numbering system at all.

Later,

SMA

 

Now for the hardest question of all, which hasn't been asked, but I
have the courage to ask.

How does a company actually go about changing from a system they were
warned not to use (because it is broken, wastes time, wastes dollars,
buys the wrong parts, etc), to a sequential numbering system?

That is what makes engineering managers and purchasing managers quake
in their boots at the thought of their retirement pensions evaporating
in the unemployment line after they screw up the transfer to a new
system.

Bo

 

Once in yer inbred its already a too late fer ya. The damage a bin
done an yer not a goin to fix er without in some buizness case bein
made fer sure. we knows it takes on o dem der hi-pots fer decidin this
notin the folks feelin the hurtin.

SMA

 

Indeed - the only real requirement - Uniqueness!

No duplicate names or numbers of any sort. That's all a good system
needs.

Intelligent systems work just fine if you have a standard product.
Don't be fooled. Sometimes intelligence in a part number _IS_ a great
thing. BUT on the other side, the value falls off fast if the "thing"
cant be easily described in a few numbers (read Parameters). Equally
asinine is using a "coded" (intelligent) system where the part number
practically describes how to build the darn thing.

Were I king of the world, I would use simple sequence for _most_
design. However if I were a ball bearing manufacturer, you bed your
booty that I would have a CODING based number system that described the
bearings I was making, the beauty of sequence numbers aside. This is
an actual reason why you want to get an 80R13/P170 tire for your car
and not tire number 12877-88-5777 revision B. Perhaps I'm taking this
out of context, but there are are times when coding makes absolutely
great sense, other times when it is the silliest thing on earth. The
absolutely worst thing is to have a system designed by someone with no
appreciation of taxonomy and no knowledge of when to apply a coded or a
simple sequence to a type of work.

Take this for example: http://www.danly.com/idanly/products/18122.html

This describes springs - partially smart, partially dumb. Take the
number 9-1604-26

9 Describes it as a spring (its a company abstraction)
1604 describes the size, 16 16th's = 1" diameter x 04 1/4's = 1" long
26 Describes the strength again (another company abstraction)

Imagine this system on an "meaningless" sequential basis. What a laugh
and a waste that would be. There are lots of places where a coded
system is a good thing. There are other times when it makes no sense.
Go look at ansi p-type bushings - they are coded and this is far
superior to a sequence based system. In both these cases, there is no
duplication of any part number and the parts are all unique. Many
perforators are sold this way as well - they are ordered more by
specification than by part number and the spec defines the geometry.
Go look at pem hardware and you will see a nicely devised coded system,
doing it another way would be suicidal for that product line.

On the "other side" a sequence based system is the absolute best for
custom machinery and I have seen the type or product code prefix work
nicely. My present employer has a quasi type-code, sequential number +
description in our solidworks names and it works really well. We are
not is a business where a coded system makes sense.

The real trick is playing armchair taxonomist and determining what
style of numbering meets your business needs. What is economically
sound and requires the least amount of work to sustain? That's the big
question. Nobody outside your business can really do a good job of
answering that for you.

But we stray away from you real question . . .

Later,

SMA

 

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 20:30:31 -0400, Sporkman

I feel for you Sporky -

People who think they know everything are a real pain in the bottom to
those who do know everything!!

Sorry - I couldn't resist

TTFN


Jonathan

 

But we stray away from you real question . . .

Good advice!!

Thanks so much for your input!

 

Your question is a lot like asking "what color should I paint my

Understood

But I've still got to ask the question

And have gotten great feedback so far!