[quote=Sappermarc post_id=2514 time=1617383607 user_id=360]
(link deleted by admin)
[/quote]
eh?
[quote=dpihlaja post_id=2909 time=1617737310 user_id=96]
[quote=Sappermarc post_id=2514 time=1617383607 user_id=360]
(link deleted by admin)
[/quote]
eh?
[/quote]
That user apparently signed up just to post a bunch of links to something I wasn’t going to click on.
[quote=“Glenn Schroeder” post_id=2913 time=1617738142 user_id=50]
[quote=dpihlaja post_id=2909 time=1617737310 user_id=96]
[quote=Sappermarc post_id=2514 time=1617383607 user_id=360]
(link deleted by admin)
[/quote]
eh?
[/quote]
That user apparently signed up just to post a bunch of links to something I wasn’t going to click on.
[/quote]
I guess I should have reworded my question to:
Is it possible to delete threads entirely?
I agree. Why delete the content of the opening post instead of just killing the thread.
I would assume so, but as far as I know matt is the only one with the power to do that.
Matt might have hidden the content, with the possibility of reinstating it if the OP proves to be legit.
Can we salvage this thread?
Smart numbers or not…go!!!
Semi Smart is the way to go, meaning.
Open a New Excel Document and use as many columns as you need..
(Based on Job Shop or Custom Orders)
1st Column - Customer (if it’s customer specific)
2nd Column - Style (if applicable)
3rd Column - What (like here Table - Chair etc)
4th Column - Size
5th Column - Custom
6th Column - could be used to designate a Purchased item such as Hardware or Drive Units ect
Which would give you a part number 00-00-00-00-00 etc or you can run them together 0000000000
This seems to work pretty good
mirisj wrote a great post about this subject in his blog years ago, back when he had a blog. I wish I still had access to it. (He said no, they aren’t a good idea, by the way.)
Heresy!!! 
I’d advocate for a smart number, but not too smart. I don’t need it to make me look dumb.
As I recall, Jeff’s main problem with them was that people tend to try to make them too smart, so they run into situations where it doesn’t work, and the whole system spirals out of control.
It’s a tradeoff and no system is perfect. So chasing 100% is a losing proposition, in any endeavor.
Dumb numbers:
Pros
- Easy to assign, next number please.
- Not affected by future unforeseen changes to the “smarts”.
Cons
- Can tell nothing about the parts, more difficult to memorize.
- Review BOMs and parts list may be more difficult unless other information is displayed.
- Don’t work as well with part families and configurations along with tabulated drawings.
Smart numbers:
Pros
- Without other information, users can tell “something” about the parts.
- Less errors and faster when looking for parts because of above.
- When combined with family numbering scheme, can work well for tabulated drawings and configurations.
Cons
- More thought goes into assigning numbers, gatekeeper needed. Mistakes sometime cannot be corrected.
- Can take a long time to define and is on going.
- Later changes and consolidation breaks the “smart” advantage (somewhat)
Off the top of me head…feel free to add more.
I deleted the link because that was the part of the post that people objected to. But there was nothing in the post other than the link. So I deleted the post, and now the rest of the thread remains.
Anyway, since we’re here, here is an excerpt from my (2009) SW Administration Bible on part numbering.
I give examples of intelligent part systems that work (tire sizes) and ones that don’t work (dewey decimal system for books).
In the end, my recommendation is a semi-intelligent system with some means of general classification up front for easy recognition, with some sort of sequential number for parts that fit that classification. Because you just can’t think of everything right up front. Especially in product development where we’re supposed to be coming up with new stuff all the time.
Anyway, here’s a 16 pg pdf excerpt from the 2009 SW Admin Bible.
Thanks for sharing that matt
Just to add - What I think is important, think about how the product is being sold, broken down pc by pc or by sub-assemblies. This is all part of a comprehensive “Design Intent Program”
Where’s the thumbs down (or broken heart maybe?) icon? 
Just say “Blue Elephant”
What’s the alternative to a smart numbering system? The only two I can think of would be a completely random system which would be utter chaos or a linear numbering system which would tell you nothing. Neither of those options even seem reasonable for any relatively complex system.
There’s also a third option which is a combination of smart and linear. We do that here for our purchased parts. We break the part into groups, electrical, mechanical, air, hydraulic etc etc. The start of the part number starts with a “Smart’ish” prefix like XXX-XXX. Typically the first XXX is what group it is being used in and the second XXX is the group like ELE, FLU, MEC etc. After that it’s “Next number please”. So when you look at the number you know what group in the company is using it, what it is roughly, but have no idea what it actually is until you look it up.
By comparison I created a “Smart number” system for our tool box. Most certainly you can run into parts that don’t fit the mold, but then you modify the mold. I think what people end up doing is making the “Smart number” too rigid. If it’s somewhat flexible then you can modify it at a later date to include other things.
The place I worked before used a linear number system, which was only feasible because Teamcenter handled the part/number creation.
We have a smart numbering system here, and it means nothing to me. It is still just a number. I am clearly in the minority.
I think it depends if the “meaning” in the number scheme “means” anything to you. Our numbers have a 3 digit code for the type of part. So when scanning a list of part numbers, you can easily pick out the hardware, certain electrical components, etc. For large complex BOMs and assemblies trees this is a big advantage IMO. Our biggest problem though is we have too many categories, about 400 categories, so assignment is tough and some overlap. Still, it’s at least 90% accurate and lot of people are complaining that our new global system is moving to dumb numbers. It’s amazing to watch engineers just rattles off part numbers off the top of their head for parts they “know”. That goes away with the longer dumb number.