Re: ISO9000 CAD numbering

My company is ISO 9001:2000 certified.

As far as standard parts (Hardware, screws, washers, purchased products like o-rings, snap rings, etc, etc.) we set up a numbering system. As we create a new assembly, if the hardware is in our system, we'll simply use it. If it's not, we'll assign the new hardware a the next number in the system. It does not have to be unique to a specific job/project (ie, as you said and have multiple p/n's for the same part)

For example, this is the system we use. We assigned a series of numbers that are only for purchased parts (95000 series)

95000 (shims) 95001 (lubrications) 95002 (open bearings) 95003 (shielded bearings) 95004 (retaining rings) 95005 (o-rings) etc, etc.

We created a standard print (in excel actually) for each. When we need an o-ring that's not there, we assign the next dash number to what we need. If it's a new category, we assign it the next 95000 series number and it becomes the first dash number. We have our own SWx library of standards parts that correspond to the 95000 series dash numbers.

If you break down ISO 9000 to it's basic form, it's simply traceability. Have procedures documented and make sure you follow them, and conduct frequent audits to make sure they are being followed.

IYM

I don't know what ISO 9000 says but here is my theory:

We have a low volume product that sometimes uses parts that are the same as in another product but we refrain from re-using the same part number across projects. The reasoning for this is what if the part has to be revised at design or in the future, this now changes the part for all jobs it was used in. There is a specification for defining when a part gets a new number but I feel it is just to dangerous and prone to errors, ie: someone not realising where else the part is used and changing it. So we just do a save as and give the part a new number for the new job.

For comman parts ie; nuts screws etc we have a system similer to the previous poster.

Again we produce low volumes so this makes sense for us it may not for a different situation.

Steve R

Thanks for the replies. In the scenario below, depending on the scale of the change, we would either save the part as a new revision (ge; 100-01-B) or as a new part (eg; 100-02). Drawings that had used the rev 100-01-A part would remain unchanged and new projects could use either part as required as they would be uniquely identified.

What I'm trying to get my engineer away from is calling a part "ProjectA-100-01-A" and then on the next project calling the same part "ProjectB-100-01-A" because I feel that this means we can't tell from the part name whether the 2 are really identical. What I want him to do is simply call the part "100-01-A" and on the drawing refer to it as such. Identification of the project should be a separate unrelated entity on the drawing template.

He however insists that ISO9000 explicitly states the the name of the part should contain the project reference. We're not actually ISO9000 registered but do want and try to follow the guidelines where we can.

Gerry

ISO9000 does not give that statement, neither does it imply that statement.

In essence, all ISO9000 does, is the verify that you do things a particular way, and will always do things that way, until you rewrite your way of doing those things!

If I said, I will put my drawings on blue paper with pink spots, it will meet ISO9000 standards, as long as I continue to do that.

I think he is talking about ISO drawing standards, which is different altogether.

I feel for both of you, myself having to do both jobs, lol