Universal product naming/numbering?

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

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

snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net wrote:

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' Staplet>

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?

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.

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:

Our numbering system is XX-XXXX-XX for models and drawings, where the first two are used for classification - eg 10 is electomechanical, 35 is thermoelectric modules, 66 is firmware, 07 is PCB assemblies, and so on. The next four are serial numbers, 1234 etc, the last two are for configurations -01 is basic, -02 is a variant and so on.

Revs are separate. numeric for prototypes, alpha for production.

Reference PDFs contain the number, rev and word description so they can be searched by google desktop eg 10-0018-01 Rev A top plate

Works for us!

bp DVC Co.

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'

John Layne wrote:

. . . (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:

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:

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

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