Off-topic Soapbox Rant

A warning: This post will have absolutely nothing to do with SolidWorks, or CAD for that matter.

Why do people feel that part numbers need to represent anything? Too often I've seen "smart" part numbers end up being so convoluted that you need a PhD in cryptography to understand anything. What's bringing this on? I'm ashamed to admit it, but there is such a part numbering system here. It's not as ugly as some I've seen, but it's frustrating nonetheless. Naturally, I tried to get the powers-that-be to see the error of their ways but, in the end, I had to concede. (Today is only my third day, I don't want it to be my last.)

What so many people fail to realize is that a part number is just a placeholder in the MRP system (or whatever inventory control system you're using). The part description is the important part. Yes, I know there are those who are screaming "blasphemer" at me, I don't care. The minute you implement a "smart" part numbering system, you're setting up for future failure. At some point you're going to have a new part that is really similar to an existing part so you'll add some sort of suffix or prefix to its number so you can differentiate between the two. Next thing you know, you've got a third one that's similar to the other two. Another suffix, perhaps? Oops, look, here's a fourth one. Ok, we'll just create another classification, slide the first three over and now we're good. Right? Crap, what to do with the old numbers? Hey look, this part is sort of like the first four, but it's also sort of like these ones over here...
It's enough for me to want to pull my hair out.

Everyone, for the most part, has heard of the KISS principle, right? Keep it simple stupid. A part number should be just that, a stupid number. Whether it's 4-, 5- or 6-digits really depends on your company's needs. How many parts are you dealing with? Let the description take care of telling you what it is: Screw, HHC, 1/4-20 x 1, GR5; Cable, Red, 4 GA; Number, Part, Stupid.

Think about it, no more having to train newbies on how your part numbering system is deciphered. No more having to come up with new codes. Need a new part number, just take the next available one. The world is already confusing enough. Let's not make it worse with "smart" part numbers, ok?

</end rant>

Comments

[Gary Hall]

very nicely put

[Brian McElyea]

I agree! I'm having to fight this at my company right now. Their documentation actually has you putting the revision in the file name! ASININE!!!

Luckily, I am taking care of that forthwith with our implementation of PDM...

There was once upon a time where smart part numbers made sense, like before computers... This is just one of the remaining dinosaur remnants of "that's the way we've always done it"!

[fcsuper]

I found a white paper that studies this issue. I don't remember where the link is, but I have it printed out. Basically, the dumber the number, the smarter your system; and the smarter the number, the dumber the system. :)

[fcsuper]

BTW, I don't think this is off topic at all. It applies directly to SW.

[Steve Calvert]

Guys, you need some sort of intelligence with PN's but you don't have to go overboard. You should see the crap I have to put up with here dealing with our old US PN system (two different formats, 6-3 and 3-6-3) and now with our Global system Smarteam we have Wx?????? numbers. The x stands for what country is was created in (not owned) and that would be U (USA), M (Malmo, Sweden) T (Talamona, Italy) R (Rio, Brazil)and C (China). I don't have a problem with the new numbering system and/or the new PDM system it's just that I have to keep all this togehter and remember which CAD system to use with each.

I love my job...

Steve

[Devon T. Sowell]

Hi Jeff-

I was lucky enough to attend all the factory technical schools of both Honda and Suzuki. I've also done contract work for Nissan and Yamaha. All of these highly successful companies use smart part numbers.

Perhaps I should do a blog post about this.

Cheers,
Devon