Non Significant Part Numbering System 1

[JKropetz]

Good evening peers! Here is my current part numbering scheme listed below and my plan of action if and when the original allocation of numbers run out. I am hung up on what to do after the first set of 500000-599999 numbers, please see below:

100000-199999 RAW MATERIALS 600000-699999
200000-299999 Purch.Parts 700000-799999
300000-399999 Manuf.Parts 800000-899999
400000-499999 Sub ASM/WLD 900000-999999
500000-599999 Top Lvl ASMS

What do you recommend for Top Level ASM's when I or we use 599999? I don't see this happening but a plan has to be in order for "the future".

Thank you all for your comments on this topic.

Justin

 

[JMirisola]

First, by assigning certain numbers to certain things, you've made them significant. Second, I worked at a manufacturing company that had been in business for almost 35 years, and they had barely over 100,000 part numbers used. I think you're going to be just fine.

Jeff Mirisola
My Blog

 

[jassco]

Hi, Justin:

I totally agree with Jeff that by assigning certain numbers to certain things, you've made them significant. If I were you, I would use a sequential number for parts, and another one for assembly. Just to make sure that lengths of your part numbers and assembly numbers are appropriate for your needs (future needs). I would choose 8 or 10 digits.

Best regards,

Alex

 

[JMirisola]

Why use two different numbers for parts and assemblies? Part/assembly numbers are simply place holders, it's the description that identifies what it is. Even if you can identify something as an assembly by its number, you still aren't identifying what it is. I don't understand why people get so wrapped up in having a number tell them if something is a part, bought, made, an assembly or whatever. You still need the description to know exactly what you have in front of you. Let go of any sort of "intelligence" in your numbers, it's not really doing you any good.

[/rant]

Jeff Mirisola
My Blog

 

[MadMango]

I wouldn't go over 6 digits, making the character string too long will invite typographic errors. As much as you try to fight for non-significant part numbers, marketing or sales will also try to assign intelligence to the top level or finished good.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of these Forums?

 

[EEnd]

Options I see are:
[ol][li]A00000 - A99999 - Probably the best if there is no hard requirement (software) that part numbers are really numbers.[/li]
[li] 000000 - 099999 - Unused in the existing scheme, yet still 6 digits an strictly a number.[/li]
[li]1000000 - 1099999 - 7 digits, but follows the pattern of 500K greater than the old number.[/li]
[/ol]

Eric

 

[jassco]

Hi, Jeff:

Part models (*.sldprt) and assembly models (*.sldasm) are two different kinds of objects in Solidworks. So, to me it is natural to use two different kinds of part numbering schemes for them. Additionally, because parts models are related to assembly models, it would be awkward to create relationship for a part to itself.

Best regards,

Alex

 

[JMirisola]

Alex,

I totally agree with Jeff

How did you go from agreeing with me to disagreeing with me?

Remember that the part numbering system you use will go beyond SolidWorks. As for parts and assemblies being different therefore lending themselves to different part numbering systems, that just doesn't make sense at all.

Let's look at it this way: you need a 1/2-16 x 2 Hex head cap screw, but you don't know if there's already one modeled. How are you going to search for it? I'm betting you're going to do a search looking for some portion of the part's name because there's no way you can guess what the part number is, even if you have the numbers separated between parts and assemblies. Which goes back to my main point, part numbers are only place holders.
The part numbering system you choose will end up being used by your purchasing department, your parts department and your manufacturing line. The part number provides a unique identifier to a part, making it less likely that you'll get a 12 inch bolt when you wanted a 1/2 inch bolt, but it in no way defines the part.


Jeff Mirisola
My Blog

 

[ctopher]

Jeff,
I understand what you are saying.
But, you can search for descriptions within a file that is saved as a part number.

My experience is if you have configuration control established within your company, each part should have it's own P/N along with its own dwg. Each assy the same. The assy has its own P/N different from any part, but listing a BOM or PL that lists parts that make up the assy.
The numbers can be any scheme as long as the company follows it and undertands it.
I'm not a fan of assigning P/N's to purchased parts, it can be a nightmare.

Chris
SolidWorks 11
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[fcsuper]

My experience with smart numbers is that any value they have over the lifetime of their use is completely lost the very first time there is an argument over how a part should be classified. That arguement usually happens within 1 month of the system implementation. The smarter you make the system, the more often you have these arguments, the less value the smart system has over timne.

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

 

[CADFlyer]

I think what you'll notice (from all the replies above) is that is no correct way to implement a part numbering system, although there may be plenty of incorrect ones [highlight #FCE94F][/highlight].

My experience is that no matter what system is in place, smart or dumb, the numbering method will change. Whether it is new management dictating a change between smart/dumb, new software limitations/requirements, merging of companies/software systems, etc… Change is inevitable.

Engineering, purchasing, sales, & manufacturing all have different views on what the numbers should look like. It is your job to determine which method is simplest for the entire organization today.

 

[JMirisola]

Chris,
You're misunderstanding me. I never said a part shouldn't have a part number; they most certainly should. What I'm saying isn't you don't need one set of numbers for parts and another for assemblies, as the OP suggested. You just need to decide how many digits you need. One could argue that you can start with 4 digits and then just grow accordingly. Why decide that you're going to go with 5 or 6, when you don't have 10,000 parts/assemblies?
Here, everything gets a part number, including purchased parts. Any derived file (drawing, parasolid, etc) has the same number. Of course an assembly's BOM lists its child parts by P/N and description, with a quantity.
I haven't had any problems assigning P/N's to purchased parts, and it certainly makes things easier for inventory and when pulling parts for builds.

Jeff Mirisola
My Blog

 

[ctopher]

Thanks Jeff.
Yes, I misread you.
I agree with you on the digits.

Chris
SolidWorks 11
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[gwubs]

We use insignificant numbers. We use 5 digit numbers for parts and assemblies. We have started our fastener numbers at 80,000 so that when you do a sort of BOM, the fasteners are at the bottom. We use the same number for the drawing of a part or assembly, and save them is the same folder. Our folders are named (numbered) to show which files are stored within. One hundred numbers per folder. This works very well. If you know a part or drawing number, just look in the folder with that number in its named range. This allows tons of open and save tasks to be set up in macros. Whatever you do PLAN YOUR SYSTEM. Don't go for quick and dirty, - there is little or no payback