Internal Part Description Standards

[SCPCOMP]

Our company is in the process of consolidating material from 3 legacy companies (aquired through mergers and buyouts). Anyway, our internal part number for standard components will now use a sequential part number (non-intelligent). Doing such, we must have better control of our descriptions for searchability.

Are there standards for description abbreviations as well as how to structure a description? Some of ours include:

CAP = Capacitor
RES = Resistor

CER = Ceramic (this would follow CAP)

Please let me know. Thank you.

 

[IRstuff]

This question was just discussed less than 1 post ago:
thread797-79839

TTFN

 

[SCPCOMP]

My question was reffering to DESCRIPTIONS to attach to the part numbers. We already decide on a 7 digit non intelligent part number.

 

[IRstuff]

I would suggest multiple, redundant descriptions.

Any entry error on a single descriptor can make a part disappear forever.

TTFN

 

[KeremSencan]

I would suggest you ,do not use -,& like characters and description direcltly. only use numbers
For example Phycomp(philiphs) products was too good, for example 232273462742. it was included product description.
I can find easily from dists and brokers, numbers support to product,it do not cause the mistake , and it is checked easily by quality deparment.

KEREM SENCAN
sencankerem@hotmail.com
Component Finder

 

[designchain]

There are no "industry standards" for component description as you're describing...yet. This is actually quite a substantial undertaking when you sit down and think about it. At a former employer we had two documents totalling about 150 pages that descibed abbreviations, what parameters to include in the descriptions, and length (we were limited to 40 characters by the ancient, internally developed system). One doc was for components, the other for assemblies, documentation, etc.

Using description standards is one idea; the other is to invest in a tool that has a classification scheme and parametrics already developed (or that you can add to and modify) AND that builds the description from the parametrics. That way you can search for internal parts via parametrics (and do so mathematically; i.e. find a capacitor between 1e-6 and 1.1e-6 F...) OR via description. Systems that can do this do exist.

To get past IRstuff's caveat that a typo will bury a part and hide it from the possibility of reuse, the description should be auto-generated AND, if the company is large enough, there should be a second set of eyes in the workflow that can review/approve the description.

Contact me for more info.

Thanks,
Mike

--
Mike Kirschner
Design Chain Associates, LLC

http://www.designchainassociates.com

 

[uWaveFDL]

http://www.draftingzone.com/dmindex/index/

http://www.williamandrew.com/titles/1446.html

Check out the above sites they may be of assistance.

 

[EdDanzer]

I took the class on engineering documentation and control by Frank B. Watts several years ago. Very little time was dedicated to descriptions that could be cross referenced. My thoughts are to have something similar to an index in books that point to a page similar to a dictionary that lists the preferred description first, with definitions, then other descriptions as references. If the preferred description could be copied and pasted with a hyperlink to the dictionary description when used, that could be of further value during searches.

 

[designchain]

Frank's book, while excellent, spends precious little time on classification and description standards. The "Drafting Zone" is interesting but doesn't look like there's going to be much there, even for mechanical description standards.

Mike

--
Mike Kirschner
Design Chain Associates, LLC

http://www.designchainassociates.com

 

[sordonyx]

In our company, I'm using my own standard descriptions such as:

Resistor (thru hole):

Res type value tol power
ex. Res MF 3ohm 1% 1/4W (MF for metal film)
Res CF 3 ohm 1% 1/4W (CF for carbon film)

resistor (surface mount)

Res value tol power size

Res 3ohm 1% 1/10W 0805

Capacitor:

(Ceramic thru hole)
Cap cer 1uf 20% X7R

Cap polyester .47uF 10% 63V
Cap film XY 1uF 20% 250VAC (this is safety cap, XY for safety)

(electrolytic)

Cap elec 10uF 20% 50V 105C 5x11

So the descriptions really depends on what type of components you are using. As long as you also standardized the internal part number for each type of components such as different prefix for each component e.g. 1-xxyyz for resistor, 11-xxyyz for capacitor, 22-xxyyz for semiconductor and so forth. And maybe sub-category for yy value for component type

Well, this is how I standardized our part numbering system.

But....still it's up to you. I hope this suits your applications.

good luck c",)
sordonyx

 

[ewinter]

Understanding how many characters are allowed in the part description in your controlling database will dictate some on how much detail that you can include in the description. Typically a noun, modifier, modifier, etc. IE cap,.10uf,50V,10%,X7R,cer,1206,etc.
Although not a description standard, ASME Y1.1-1989 "abbreviations" is a good basis for naming parts.
Some MRP, ERP, systems have fields that will allow for categorization of parts based on user definable fields.
In the past working with Cadis, Aspect and I2, the discussion of an auto-generating tool for descriptions has always been cost prohibitive but a well-defined schema of organizing the info was pursued instead.
A well thought out internal document that categorizes component types and identifies description requirements is what I have been involved in creating or using. This also requires a well defined process of new component introduction to the controlling system that get the right personnel in the release process. I have examples of these documents for anyone that is interested.

 

[curtcarl]

FYI - ASME Y1.1-1989 was superseded by Y14.38-1999.

Curt Carlson
CNT

http://www.cnt.com