|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
On a specific issue, I am about to start looking at putting in a part numbering system to a company which currently does not use one. Is there any guidance available from the IOM on the best way to set the system up (eg when should the numbers be meaningful rather than random, what pros and cons for numeric or alphanumeric numbering systems etc.)? Thanks in anticipation!
|
|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
An interesting question. One of the books on stock control that I refer
To most often (Storage and Control of Stock, by Alex Morrison CBE) actually talks complete nonsense on the subject. In fairness, it was written when most companies didn't have reasonable computer systems and had to imbed 'intelligence' in parts codes to allow sorting and analysis.
The first think to note, when inventing code numbers, is that the human brain likes things in threes. If you ask people to read the number 164327, for example, most will say "164 pause 327" or "sixteen, forty-three, twenty-seven". On the basis that most companies can't get away with 3-character part codes, the optimum number of characters becomes six. Six characters doesn't sound a lot but the last time I spoke to BP, a 6-character code was enough to cope with everything they bought or stocked - from a bar of soap for a service area restroom to a replacement engine for an oil tanker. So six it is.
I'm not a great believer in imbedded intelligence in part numbers. When I was with an American company in the oil industry, they had 10-character 'intelligent' part numbers. They caused chaos! Not only could no-one remember them, but parts were continually re-classified (and consequently re-numbered) when people disagreed which 'family' they fell into. Using the
first two charcters as a family group doesn't offend me, though, as long as the remaining 4 are just sequential.
One problem (apart from length) with intelligent part numbers is that some companies use both alpha and numeric characters. That's fine if the 'rules' are that, e.g., the first 2 characters are always alpha and the remaining are always numeric (No exceptions!) but, when companies mix and match them, '1' (one) gets confused with the letter 'I', '5' becomes an 'S' and the poor old zero has a fit! It didn't matter in the days of manual systems but it causes chaos in the computer age.
Without knowing the industry that the questioner is in, it's hard to be precise but my inclination would be to go for a 6-character number, possibly 2 alphas (which might indicate product family, or might just differentiate between raw material, WIP and finished goods, for example) followed by 4 random, sequential numerics. If 4 numerics doesn't sound enough, go for one alpha followed by 5 numerics - don't be tempted to go for 7 (or 8) characters as people just won't remember them. And remember, BP only use 6.
Regards
Sam
|
|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
There are people around who still promote variants on Brisch or similar, but I think in general these are largely discredited now.
>
With regard to significance, it depends on the nature of the product. It can be useful, say, for all rotors to begin with the same first three digits, or all parts made from stainless steel to have a suffix denoting this fact.
>
The key point here is that although some significance is useful, don't try and define everything. Remember, with modern computer systems enabling item class, commodity code and the like to be used to define everything, the part number is far less important. Equally, we don't need any significance whatsoever when looking at a screen or report because the part description will be shown alongside the number.
>
> However, it is undoubtedly of benefit if all parts of a particular general type begin with the same sequence of numbers - it means that people can recognise an item, broadly, by its number and if we give somebody on a part number to check upon they can walk back to an office and have more chance of remembering it - if 4153762MN is a spindle manufactured from monel all they have to remember is 3762.
>
Other than that, the rule is simply to apply common sense.
>
Ian Henderson
|
|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
I suggest it depends what the part numbers are to be used for - in house or also customers? What else they may wish to do with part number data - do they wish to extract all part XXX, by part numbers? I have worked at 3 places; 2 had 'logical' part numbers, which people generally found more useful than the 'random' numbers at another place.
>
Steve J
|
|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
KISS!
Assuming a modern system, let the computer do the hard work. Keep the part numbers as short as possible and use alpha & numbers for easier to remember and key in. Put anything descriptive that is required in the description, other appropriate fields, BOM;s etc. Use (a) simple number sequence(s), so the next part number to be issued requires no further thought power. For part number length, think how many part numbers there need to be eventually, e.g. 999,999, and remember you are bound to need ten times more in 20 years. Use letters so less characters need to be used. Do not use slashes and hyphens that confuse customers and suppliers. Our part numbers are like A012345, S56789, CD1234. They are much easier to remember and use than some of our customers' like 055859U0161 (with meaningful elements) or 0012806500000 (with dodgy leading and trailing zeros) I would be interested to see (? in the magazine?) what you end up with.
Henry B
|
|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
A meaningful, numerical or alphabetic numbering system depends on a number of factors to do with the company and product. Meaningful numbering systems are helpful if BOM structures are
complicated and deep. Numeric numbers could be linked to structure depth. Alphabetic could be linked if products are handed. There are other issues that should be considered such as same product sold to different customers. The main thing is keep it simple to understand.
Frank B
|
|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
Composite numbers are always a good idea based on customer, supplier, assembly, assembly cell etc. There is a branch of manufacturing management which is concerned with grouping materials for manufacture and proposes a numbering methodology but try as I might I cannot remember its name. Cellular manufacture touches on this and some may be a source of information. Hope this is of some use.
Finally Remembered - Group Technology, if he / she has a look at any text on Group Technology it should give a good format for developing part numbers.
Gordon M
|
|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
This is a topic that generates significant heat. My advice is to keep it simple and avoid meaningful part numbers! Sounds like a small company that has growth plans and is probably about to implement a new system!
Gordon H
|
|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
Again there is a lot of material from APICS on part numbering depends on the types of items and what future expansion is anticipated in the system. Probably need more information to make an informed judgement
Stephen M
|
|
iomnet
|
|
|
System Administrator
Total Posts: 87
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Member #1
|
Set up your part numbering system to take best advantage of your ERP system:
Use random numbers
Use attribute fields to store meaning
If you do not have an ERP system, then a meaningful numbering system maybe useful.
Caroline B
|
Guidance on setting up part numbering system?
29 Jun 2007, 20:21