How to convince designers to use auto numbering ?

[StevenDumon]

In our current setup we generate a unique auto-numbered filename and document number for CAD documents created in Creo. The number is generated by Windchill but the designer can override this to organize client-specific assemblies and drawings. From my point of view, generic models that are not related to that specific product should have that initially generated number.

Some designers have convinced their engineering manager that with auto-numbering and no logic in that number, it is almost impossible to save copies of the models since there is no indication if a model has te be reused or not. Furthermore, our production department is very much organized by the part numbers, but we've made some important steps to start moving away from that principle. Engineers who are eager to return to a fully manual numbering are hereby rendering our efforts obsolete and have sometimes very little interest for what ERP, reusability, ... concerns.

The advantages of automatic numbering are clear to us however, but it it appears not that easy to convince everybody. I post this question because I hope to get some input of anybody who responds with "Hey, we've managed to do this, without reverting to physical violence...". I reallty like to hear how you got this through.

Best regards,

Steven

[DarrenStorey]

Subject is covered well in the following book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Engineering-Documentation-Control-Handbook-Frank/dp/0815515952

regards

Darren

[StevenDumon]

Thanks. The hardcopy is ordered, I'm quite sure it will help me defending my point of view !

[TomU]

There is a newer, 4th edition. Here is the link from Amazon (in the US):

http://www.amazon.com/Engineering-Documentation-Control-Handbook-Edition/dp/1455778605

[ptc-4864603]

that's a great book! highly recommended.

[huggre]

Steven

Numbering systems with embedded logic should be avoided at all cost.

This goes for both documents and partnumbers.

The best way to get users to adapt to this idea is to provide the information they require using other mechanisms, such as metadata, classification, product structures etc.

In general, the decision on what numbeing system to use should not be left to the individual user.

This must be defined in global company coding and numbering policies.

Hugo

[StevenDumon]

I know. If only others would understand this. Thanks for the support !

[GregoryPERASSO]

Change Designers .... As for a newbie in a company, logical numbering has no sense without historic background ... So it turn your numbering automatically to "non logical"

Without joking ... after having implemented several CAD and Windchill integration (Catia, CADDS, Creo ...)

One of the point for Creo designers is that we can only display the Filename (which is mainly keep in synch with number and name) in the assembly tree ... And have to add columns to displays other attributes ... lost of screen space ... Where in a Catia, we can tune the tree to display what you want ....

Anyway ... Cultural change .... have to put in balance the ROI for the company, with the ROI for some people in that company ...

[TomU]

Huge Gregersen wrote:

Numbering systems with embedded logic should be avoided at all cost.

This goes for both documents and partnumbers.

Gregory PERASSO wrote:

One of the point for Creo designers is that we can only display the Filename...

Anyway ... Cultural change .... have to put in balance the ROI for the company, with the ROI for some people in that company ...

Gregory's comments about Creo's ability to open/save/search by filename only are the primary hurdle to removing logic from the numbering system. Without some logical relationship between filenames one would be forced to go to Windchill and do a "where used" anytime they needed to know anythingabout a cad document. At least with some logic to the file naming we can tell what project a particular file is part of. I think the productivity of designers (ROI) would decrease significantly without this filename relationship.

I am a huge fan of removing "changing" logical information from the filename. In our world cad models don't jump between projects, but they do move around within a project. Unfortunately our current naming convention includes this location information in the filename. That means every time a cad object moves within the project we have to go through the change process of altering it's name and recreating all supporting documentation.

So I guess I "half" agree with you.

[huggre]

Tom

Well, im not not familiar with your company or the project/products you design.

However, my personal experience is that you rearly start a new project where you would not benefit from re-using some elements that you ore someone else have done i a previous project.

It might be that this i a new company, and that you have not experienced this situation yet, but over time this effect will get more noticable.

This is when you will start seeing the downside of the logical numbering approach.

And you should not be looking at this problem only from a Creo/design perspective.

The real problems starts in the down-stream supply chain processes (purchasing, warehousing, spare-parts etc.)

Hugo

[dschenken]

What benefit are you looking to get from autonumbering?

My experience is with DoD programs, where blocks of numbers are assigned by the agency that is buying items. Additionally, many of the parts are purchased, and therefore bear another manufacturer's part number at some point.

I don't see any long-term benefit to intelligent numbering and I don't see a benefit to auto numbering, but am certainly willing to listen.

[StevenDumon]

Says the designer : "I have a piece of equipment for product 12345. It is built with assemblies for that product, these assemblies and their drawings have numbers like 12345-01, 12345-02, ... and there is no discussion about that. It makes is easy to search and order drawings and product specific assemblies that are actually delivered to the client. Some parts in these assemblies are some reused library models with a sequential number, other parts are now designed for this product and are therefore also numbered like 12345-01-01, -01-02, ... a postfix that actually represents the index in the drawing BOM."

Says the production department : "Great, that number shows us where these parts have to go to.", and in a way, he's right.

Says the designer that wants to copy that product models : "Great, I can visually see what numbers are product specific, which is easy to replace with a new product number during a Save a Copy."

Off course, we end up with errors. Sometimes the repeat region index wasn't fixed, so part 01 ends up at index 05. Sometimes a part is discarded and a new part replacing it should have the same number. Quite an administrative task to fix this. Sometimes a part is not necessary in a copied model, so suddenly part 04 doesn't exist. That's why there is only a short-term benefit to intelligent numbering. On the long term, we need to reuse more parts and need to avoid all the possible errors that can be caused by that intelligent numbering.

[dschenken]

I too have no love for intelligent numbering. No matter how well it starts, sooner or later it is dashed to bits against the sometimes hidden rocks of reality.

I haven't seen anywhere using a part number for a BOM index. That's crazy.

However, assigning an essentially random number also has it's problems, like in family tables - does each new item get a number that has no relation to any others? In all the upper hundreds of MIL Specs I've seen that was done only once. Even that is too many.

I also dislike auto-BOMs, especially the PTC implementation, especially for having to repeatedly deal with jumping indexes and clumsy handling of BOM balloons.

[GregoryPERASSO]

In my previous company (A&D , helicopter engine manufacturer ), we implement a "semi automatic" numbering . but without embeded semantic exe

User can choose nothing in Number, So windchill generate a full automatic part number

but he can also put something like 0421* and windchill generates 042100010 and 042100011 , etc ....

so basically they can asign logical numbers for family table or equipements that were design for a specific End Item (which was basically numbered 042100000)

But no other intelligence .... BOM index where managed as "Item number" , (ie find number in Windchill)

which represent a specific place and function at a BOM level (and was reused notably in MRO and maintenance documentation -> ATA)