Naming Conventions for Parts

[jsweeney]

Do you have a convention or rule for how parts are named? For example, instead of having a part just named bolt, the part would be named based on the classification node and some of the key attributes. So bolt would become bolt, hex head, 1/2"

I am interested in hearing about different conventions or rules in use. Any example you have would be extremely helpful.

[BenLoosli]

One company I worked for only put the part number and desccription from the component in the BOM.

We used very generic terms to describe the part: BOLT, HEX HEAD or BOLT, SHOULDER HEX SOCKET.

We did try being more descriptive for the BOM: BOLT, HEX HEAD, 3/4-10 X 3, but the aftermarket guys made us change to all generic descriptions.

We also carried that practice over to our parts manuals, so a customer who broke a bolt would be more likely to order a replacement from us as we only gave them our part number and the generic description.

Here, we use a similar description for the primary name column but also include a secondary column with the vendor name and their part number. We only build ofor internal use, so we can be more descriptive.

[kpritchard]

To Ben's point, what is needed is two "Names" are needed... an internal (Engoineering) name and an external Service/Aftermarket) name

[kpritchard]

This is a fairly broad and at times, controversial subject.

IMO the preferred convention is a Noun or Noun Phrase, followed by "adjectives" that increase in specifics as you move to the right (primary identifier, secondary identifier). Building on your example above I would change the 1/2" to threadform (1/2-13 UNC), insert a Grade in front of it, add a length (X 1.25 LG), coating etc.

Key to this is to bear in mind that a Part Name can never fully specify something given that most systems have a character limit to the Name field.

The other thing to keep in mind is naming to support reuse, which means you need to differentiate while at the same time not precluding future uses of a component (So avoiding location and usage terms such as "UPPER" or "PRIMARY"). The worst example I have seen was "#2 O-RING".

Ideally, I would like to see PartsLink play a role in a Windchill based Naming Utility as alluded to above. The order and values of many of the Classification Nodes would drive the Name. This would also systematically avoid redundancies (thinking hardware here). The problem is the cost prohibitive PartsLink license model, which last time I looked into it seemed to suit a large organization with a dedicated parts classifier. A much larger group needs to create and name parts, and that (IMO) would make a PartsLink based naming utility cost prohibitive as is.

[lsrutkowski]

Jim,

ASME Y14.100 has a pretty good explanation and recommendation on naming conventions for drawings, which could be applied to parts as well. Essentially, they suggest that you start as generic as possible without being too vague and proceed to be more specific as the description continues. For example, a #10-32 socket head cap screw that is 1.5" long and made of 316 stainless steel might be named: SCREW,SOCKET HEAD CAP,#10-32x1.5" LONG,316 STAINLESS STEEL. Or, with some abbreviations: SHCS,#10-32x1.5",316 SSTL.