Company wide part numbering standard

[schwart5]

Hello all,

I am an intern at an armored vehicle company and have been assigned to work on a new system of part numbering company wide. As you can imagine there are many parts that go into the armoring a vehicle and our current part numbering scheme can lead to multiple parts. I have been looking all over for a standard of company wide part numbering and haven't had any luck.

Is there a standard for part numbering company wide or does each indivudual company typically come up with a system that works best for them?

Currently we have a 9 digit system that denotes; vehicle, specific vehicle type, material, location, position, thickness, sequence, etc... those types of things. Example HBXA2010

Any help appreciated.

Thanks,

Jason

 

[KENAT]

Hunt around on this forum there have been relevant threads about part numbering schemes.

Are you drawing a line between 'part numbering' and 'drawing numbering' or are they one & the same for you?

Many people feel that 'smart' numbering schemes as you seem to have often cause more trouble than they address.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[looslib]

Stick with a generic sequential numbering scheme with no, or maybe little intelligence.

100000000 starts your in-house designed parts
700000000 starts your purchased parts
If you want to go a little further, use the second digit or another first didgit for electrical, hardware, hydraulic separations. You could use a second digit for nuts, bolts, washers, etc. Just keep it generic, if you do any sort of numbering intelligence.

Let the computer databases tell you that 120025262 is a 3/4-10 Castle nut with nylon insert bought from primary vendor XYZ, Corp, with a minimum order of 100, last price paid $1.23 each, received on 12-Jun-2010, current inventory is 76, reorder point is 18.

KISS is the best rule for part numbers.

"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

 

[ptruitt]

To the best of my knowledge, the ONLY book in the ASME digital library (members only) that covers this in depth is "Engineering Documentation Control Handbook" by Frank Watts. Read it cover-to-cover. Then read "Bills of Materials for a Lean Enterprise" by David Garwood. The downstream effect of numbering formats entirely justifies the time spent.

Peter Truitt
Minnesota

 

[ewh]

I agree with Ben, and the same is reflected by Watts.

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[ptruitt]

I disagree slightly, EWH. Maybe it is not a disagreement, at all. I think some companies would be wise NOT to differentiate purchased and in-house items by document numbers. This is because some companies go back and forth fabricating or sourcing a specific part based on their workload or other MRP issues. As a designer, I would not have an opinion on part numbers if a company were to use the Garwood approach instead of the Watts approach. Designs should be 'portable'. I don't think Watts advocates putting any significance in the numbering system with respect to make/buy.

Another suggestion: Don't make number formats longer than needed. Too short, of course, is bad. But don't go overboard because extra digits are easier to mix up, contribute to eye strain, take up space on documents, contribute to repetitive stress injuries, and are not 'lean'. (Watts says this, too.)


Peter Truitt
Minnesota

 

[looslib]

I used a different number for in-house designed versus purcahsed. In-house design could be purchased or built in-house. I was referring to commodity items for the purchased part number difference.



"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli