i had worked on some ERP and numbering system :
on some kind of industry-enterprise, the only type of “dumb” can apply and is enough.
on some other kind of industry-enterprise, the full smart can apply.
and on (near many) industry-entreprise, the mix of some dumb/some smart is the good choice.
because some products are interesting to get fully-smart (screw, fastening)
some only apply to smart-prefix + dumb-end, like manufactered part with a drawing (drawing of a sheet plate)
or some sub-assembly (derived system from ePDM)
for project, and his main-sub-assembly smart numbering
the smart can also end a number to apply some options
when you study the smart numbering and all the ways to do it, you can mix systems
dumb
smart-dumb
smart-dumb-smart
fully-smart
vertical-smart-scheme
horizontal-smart-scheme
mix of them
talking number-letter, or abstract number-letter (but they still be smart)
of course, the cad parametric library files, it is smart to apply smart numbering, to work easily with config-PRT (with excel)
Yep, that’s pretty much what we do around here. “Smart” prefixs mixed with “Dumb Numbers” to “Completely Smart” numbers all mixed together depending on which best fits.
Sometimes “Smart” can get ridiculously complex, take a look at some hydraulic cylinder numbers for instance. Not sure if you need a smart number that covers every possible option on the planet because that makes “Typical” to complex. For those outside the system you add some other type of annotation.
I think “smarts” should be high level at most. The more complexity the more likely you will break it. Correcting existing part number later is usual not an option.
There is also the question of part number string length. Dumb sequential numbers that are 10 characters long just run together IMO. There is no “recognition” just glancing at number lists which dumb number advocate swill say that’s the point. The argument is that numbers shouldn’t be memorized as that could lead to errors. But in my experience it’s the opposite.
I had such high hopes that this forum wouldn’t end up in a part numbering discussion rat-hole…
I wish I could still access that post from years ago about part numbering as it was a work of art. Succinct. Perfect.
In a nutshell, my argument was that a part number is nothing more than a placeholder in your ERP/MRP system. Ascribing some sort of nomenclature to the number itself was redundant as the description of the part would tell you what it is. Furthermore, smart part number systems tend to be inflexible so God forbid you should end up with some part that doesn’t fall within its parameters.
With dumb part numbers (4-, 5- or 6-digits depending on how many parts you have/will have), you just don’t have to worry about things. Grab the next number and let the part description tell you what it is. No matter what, you’re going to have a description. Doing it this way provides a flexible system that allows for anomalous parts without causing undue pain and suffering trying to shoehorn it into some smart system.
Even the description can be flexible enough to accommodate those weird parts. Simply use “Noun, Adjective, Further descriptor”.
Screw, HHC, 1/4-20 x 4
Assembly, Scissor Arm, GS-1930
Wire Harness, 4-Wire, 24V, No connectors
full-dumb part numbers, lead to the problem of having the smae part multiple times…
description : A, B, C, D
description : A, C, B, D
description : B, A, D, C
all the same part, but created by different persons, or just because someone forgot a “space” or “,”
thus, if workingd a lot with excel-config PRT in CAD, it lead to use smart-part numering, because it save a lot lot of time.
there are different manufactures cases/needs.
but in general, a global “mixte system” is a gain to the users.
some part suits better with smart-dumb
some fully smart
some fully dumb
also with the use of “talking-abstract (but still smart)”
or the use of H or V scheme into part numbering
combinate all to create an efficient working ERP.
also, pro-dumb always say
“when i search a part, i search it by typping some keywordsn then search in the result list”
and pro-smart can’t work with that, and loose a lot of time for searching when not needed.
but with a mixing-numbering-system (that contains smart)
the important is “pro-dumb” still can search by their “old research method”
so both are happy :
pro-smart can work smartly
pro-dumb can continue to loose time by searching others and others
I am in the same camp as SPerman and mirisj above. If you are asking it is already too late. I am of the mindset that anything that you can do to minimize human interaction with data is a plus every time. Dumb smart numbering systems just make PDM/ERP/MRP automation easier in my experience/opinion. I can’t recall because it has been so long, but a CFO of a large company (Honeywell maybe???) estimated that smart numbering systems had cost his company between $60-100 million dollars in the previous decade due to data entry errors. You have to think of it from the view of the whole company/entire PLM process. Most folks entering data know how to use the number pad. There is a reason that it is separated off to the side of the keyboard like that. If you have to stop and enter a letter, or an underscore it introduces an error possibility point. This is just my opinion though.
You do realize the type of people here that Matt attracts, the degenerates of the CAD world.
Problem is not all systems (electronic or paper) will display descriptions, at least where I work. Sometimes you just get lists of numbers. The Windows file explorer is one example, just file names, usual named by part number. Of course we use PDM so I guess that’s a weak argument but we have some files on network drives.
This is true, however it only accounts for a small number of parts. While not perfect it, the benefits outweigh it, IMO.
I’ve sat on both sides of the fence on this over the years. First I was for smart, then against it completely. Then after working with both for a few years, settled on smart but not too much.
Guess it doesn’t matter now. Our global parent company has dictated we are going to a 10 digit dumb number…can’t wait
I forgot to add a huge caveat to my diatribe above. The company has to have a PDM system or an MRP system or SOME type of system that uses metadata of some sort that can be easily searched/referenced. If you are only ever going to use WE for file management then by all means, smart those numbers up!!! But I would highly suggest if you plan on growing your company to a point where you would need one or the other of these types of systems just go with a sequential number.
I’ve worked at a variety of companies with a variety of part numbering systems over the years. I think it works well if part numbers have general categories rather than just being sequential.
Most of the places I have worked send parts out to be made. They are inventoried by part number. (and if you get lucky, they include the revision in the inventory, but don’t count on that) Communicating about that part works best if you communicate by the part number. A 10 digit sequential number is hard to talk about. And, when the parts come in, just knowing what is in the box if only the part number is listed is harder. Checking a BOM is also harder.
If there is some smarts, I unintentionally memorize the part numbers. Part of it comes down to memorizing the category and then the specific number of the item. But, don’t fall in love with your part numbering system. It’s just a number. When large companies acquire many companies, you end up with all the different types of part numbers from the legacy companies. At that point it’s just a number, and they can all look very different.
The worst of all possible worlds is to have a sequential part numbering system and a 40 character limit on the description. (Spaces and punctuation count towards that character limit.)
You wouldn’t be talking about SAP might you? We are going there along with Windchill and 40 char limits on the Name field has been great fun trying to describe parts. Abbreviations galore.
Good post, CarrieIves - One thing that I would like to throw out there - Sometimes working for a company we learn more of what not to do then do, right. Well, here is a really good example of the brain dead, (pre-Keystone Sale), how about this! - one part number in our catalog, the actual model was a totally different part number, (no Cross Referencing Number System), another part number for 3 and 5 axis components, plus a really long sequential numbering system for the EPR program which included all our Quotes and Sales Orders, again No Cross Referencing Numbering System… They made it so confusing and impossible that it was actually funny, how dumb can dumb be dumb???
when studying “smart numbering”, it appears some first kinds of parts,
thinking about that when inventing or updating a numbering system can help,
the list is not exhausting, some indsutry may need some others kinds, but it can help to think :
Project ASM
Project Sub-ASM (etc…)
Generic ASM, sub-ASM (can be used in multiple projects)
Quotation ASM
R&D ASM
Project Part (can be PRT or ASM, it depend the workflow)
Generic Part (can be used in multiple projects)
(after is like we can say CAD-Llibrary, can be ASM or PRT, both are possible, depend of workflow)
Generic purchased Part (screw, nut, etc…)
Specific purchased Part (the shape or part are specific to one manufacturer,
40so can be identified by "Manuf.Name - Manuf.PartNumber)
Electrical Part
Pneumatic Part
Ghost-Shadow Part (a customer give a part that have be used in ASM, or environment part, etc…)
also, there are others, like linear-product, workshop tools, desk furnitures, etc…
frequently, a diffcult debate can happen between technical and purchase departement
on the definition of “what is a Generic or Specific purchased part”
I’ve worked at companies that do both and there are definite pros and cons to each.
My main issue with smart part numbering: What happens when you decide to modify the customer, manufacturing method, or supplier? The end item literally does not change. Does the “smart” part of the part number make sense still? Do I need to pull another part number and create a duplicate print because one aspect of the part changed? In this case, the part numbering is too “smart” and therefore has become dumb again. I have yet to see a smart or semi-smart part numbering system that makes sense to me with my limited exposure to different companies.
I’m all for a system of dumb part numbers that utilize category codes in the inventory control system to dictate what it is. This way, I can decide to change from making a part in-house to an external supplier using the same process without having to make a whole new part to do it. It’s just a tweak of one category code and we all move on with our lives.
<()> 