Slightly OT: Part Numbering

[jfrankovich]

Pros:

We have been having an internal debate for some time on part numbering. We currently number manually from spreadsheets using prefix+sequential number+suffix for parts and subassemblies as well as smart part numbering for high level assemblies.

Some like the status quo.Some would like dumb numbers across the board. Some would like a middle ground where prefixes are maintained andthe number is generated from Windchill.

Autonumbering would be great time and error saver especially for Save As operations on large assemblies(which we do daily). Unfortunately, the Windchill autonumbering is not flexible enough nor consistent enough OOTB to satisfy and ERP generated numbers are not an option. We would like to get everybody working consistently and save them some pain if possible, but that seems unlikely without a lot of customization.

My question is "how do you manage part number assignment at your company?" Manually? Autonumbering? Special App?"do you generate smart or dumb numbers?" and "have you maintained your legacy numbering or gone to a new scheme?"

Thanks,

John Frankovich

The GSI Group

[MikeLockwood]

We debated this long and hard also - and decided to stay with semi-intelligent numbers (assigned from spreadsheet as you note below).

The overwhelming reason was for convenience of working in Pro/E. For almost all other functions, using autonumbering would have been ok.

If the Pro/E files matched the Name of the CAD Doc we might still consider using autonumber, but at least for now, the Pro/E files match the Number of the CAD Doc. It is of great benefit to see semi-intelligent file names while working in Pro/E, in almosts all actions.

[HugoHermans]

Hi John,

More or less the same considerations over here. We have
semi-intelligent part- and drawing numbering. This numbering is
database managed in ERP. The WTPart name and number are the same as the
ERP-number. If I could turn back the time, I would autonumber WTParts
instead of having name and number equal.

In ProE however, the ERP-number (and WTPart-name/number) is implemented
as an attribute of models and drawings. The filename is an other
semi-intelligent convention, enabled via an own jLink-application. Some
reasons for this :
- we have many CADdocuments that will never get a ERP-number
- our CADdocuments tend to change from ERP-number during their life
cycle. If these models are topdown built, and are identified accord
their ERP-nature, you have a problem.

The same remark as for WTParts. If I could turn back time, I would
reconsider the decision to align filename - name - number. This is not
the way to go.

Regards, Hugo.

[ptc-1221945]

Hugo-

If possible, could you elaborate on why you would not align name and number for WTParts if you could do it over again? My company is close to implementing WTParts, but fromthis point(prior to actuallyusing WTParts) it is difficult to know the ramifications of the decisions yet to be made. Thanks,

-Randy

[rmp.pe]

When we first installed Windchill, we bulk loaded all of the existing part numbers into the system as-is. There is no business value in converting existing numbers to a new format, and the costs from the standpoint of drawing updates, distribution channels, BOMs, MRP systems, etc would be astronomical.

That said, we implemented a new, dumb, iterative numbering scheme for all WTPart objects created going forward. One reason for this was that we had different sites using different numbering systems, and we had some conflicts (p/n 123456 at one site was a valve, p/n 123456 at another site was a seal). Having everyone use the same system and pull from the same pool of numbers is a huge benefit. Also, in our eyes, the sole purpose of a part number is to provide a unique identifier for a part, that's it. Any information you get from prefixes or smart systems can often be better managed using other tools.

Our exception to this rule is for our End Items. We allow custom naming for these. Reason being that they are customer facing, and while we don't mind changing things around internally, we didn't want to suddenly change the structure of the part numbers our customers were ordering.

One interesting possibility is the use of subtypes. In 7.0 we couldn't use part subtypes, but you can in 9.1. If you really need to classify your parts, do it using subtypes or IBAs, not smart numbers. We have yet to apply this for parts but did something like this for documents... same problem with multiple smart numbering systems for documents. Problem was that different sites used different smart systems, and if you don't know the smart system for the site whose document you are viewing, there might as well be no smart system at all.

So we now use dumb, iterative document numbers, but we use a combination of document subtypes and IBAs to categorize them. We probably have somewhere in ther range of 100 different document types. That would be a long list to select from, so we broke it into two levels. When you create a document, you select one of 7 subtypes such as "Report", "Procedure", "Protocol", "Specification", etc. Then when you are entering attributes, you select a value from a Subtype IBA which has differentvalues depending on the document subtype selected. So if I chose a report, I could select an engineering report, lab report, etc., or if I chose a specification I could select requirement specification, functional specification, etc. By using this approach instead of smart numbers, you 1) have the ability to search and filter your documents, 2) have a system that EVERYONE understands.

Regards,

Bob Priest

Engineering Manager

STERIS Corporation

[VincentQuesnoit]

We sub-typed parts, and also made a difference betweenpurchased parts which are in libraries from designed parts which are in products. We defined a prefix for each subtype, a prefix foreach library,and generated autonumber using that prefix depending onthe type or/and location of each part (all library parts have a 2x prefix, all product parts a 1x prefix).

Parts inherited from our previous system kept their numbers, which also contained a prefix that preventedcollisions with new part numbers. We made an exception for product documents whose numbers are allocatedin another system, andlet people enter the numbers from that system. We also use autonumbering for mechanical parts, the numbers are allocated in proE, with the appropriate prefix. Purchased Mechanical Parts are in a library, so theyhave a different prefix than designed parts.

Vincent