How do you handle part/document numbering?

[mike miller]

We're starting the process of starting to upgrade our numbering scheme and I'm wondering what approaches you take. To clarify, I'm not talking about smart vs. dumb numbers since that has already been discussed and we are currently planning to use a smart or semi-smart prefix followed by a dumb number.

My question is this: do you attempt to keep drawings for ASM0001 as DWG0001-1 and DWG0001-2, or do you simply roll up to the next number and let PDM take care of it? I know it could work either way but I'm curious how and why you use a particular method.

[matt]

Is your released document going to be a drawing or 3d data or both? And if 3D data, are you going to give live SW files or dumb solids?

[MJuric]

We're starting the process of starting to upgrade our numbering scheme and I'm wondering what approaches you take. To clarify, I'm not talking about smart vs. dumb numbers since that has already been discussed and we are currently planning to use a smart or semi-smart prefix followed by a dumb number.

My question is this: do you attempt to keep drawings for ASM0001 as DWG0001-1 and DWG0001-2, or do you simply roll up to the next number and let PDM take care of it? I know it could work either way but I'm curious how and why you use a particular method.

I much prefer the Drawing number to be the same as the model over them not matching. If you have to have multiple drawings for a single part/assy then yes I would do -xx over a different number.

While PDM's can handle this mismatch largely without issue....humans handle it less well.

[mike miller]

Is your released document going to be a drawing or 3d data or both? And if 3D data, are you going to give live SW files or dumb solids?

Usually drawings and DXFs (for laser). In the rare case that we have a vendor asking for 3D data, we would supply native files. At some point in time we want to start testing Tech Pubs (SE's version of Composer, but more sophisticated) and Electrical but that will be at least a year away.

Another (perhaps semantic) question: in the case that ASM0001 has only one drawing and assuming you are matching numbers, would you designate that drawing as DWG0001-1 (looking ahead), or as just DWG0001 (if another drawing is added in the future it will need to be changed)? Not a major issue, but I want to get it "right" the first time since I'm not a moral relativist......

[MJuric]

Usually drawings and DXFs (for laser). In the rare case that we have a vendor asking for 3D data, we would supply native files. At some point in time we want to start testing Tech Pubs (SE's version of Composer, but more sophisticated) and Electrical but that will be at least a year away.

Another (perhaps semantic) question: in the case that ASM0001 has only one drawing and assuming you are matching numbers, would you designate that drawing as DWG0001-1 (looking ahead), or as just DWG0001 (if another drawing is added in the future it will need to be changed)? Not a major issue, but I want to get it "right" the first time since I'm not a moral relativist......

I would think that if you were to regularly need multiple drawings I would just start with -01 on everything and then you have the same format on everything.

Here we bastardize largely because we don't have -01 drawings very often. 90% of our drawings are one part, one drawing. We use multiple sheets in a single drawing so we might have 10 sheets to a single part but only one drawing.

When we most often end up with -01 type of stuff is on weldments where parts need to be pre-processed. So we'd have a drawing for the weldment which has the machining, weldment and all the templates for flat stuff, sheet metal etc. However if something needs to be "Pre-machined" or "Pre-bent" that get's an -01, -02 etc based on it's cut list number in the weldment.

We never or very, very, very rarely have a single non weldment part with multiple separate drawing files.

Edit to add: because of the way we do this we might have an XXXXX-01 and an XXXXXX-05 and nothing else because our "-XX" is representative of the cut list number and not page number. So if we have a weldment where only -01 and -05 need some "Pre work" of some sort we would have an XXXXXX, XXXXXX-01 and XXXXXX-05 and that's it.

[Glenn Schroeder]

This may not help you, but here every project has it's own number, and that number is used for every SW file.

[MJuric]

This may not help you, but here every project has it's own number, and that number is used for every SW file.

This is how we do it in the automation division here. Part number is essentially [project number][sub assembly number][part number in sequence] and then on weldments we add [cut list number]

Some of our product line divisions use a "Smart number" for part and drawing numbers.

Some of our resale divisions end up using the OEM numbers with suffixes/Prefixes.

All of our internal use items, gages, fixtures, etc are a prefix dictating what it is followed by the next sequential number.

Our MRP system essentially has a daily stroke because in essence we do not have a company wide naming convention and never will. However for the most part the naming conventions chosen make sense for the function they perform.

[HerrTick]

One client has revisions for parts and sub-revisions for drawings. The drawing revisions sync with the part revisions, plus have a sub-revision. The allows for changes to the drawing like dimensions, notes, and callouts that do not impact the 3D model.

[mike miller]

What do you do for purchased parts that need to have motion such as hinges, hydraulic cylinders, and shocks? I don't particularly like to assign part numbers just for the purpose of allowing a cylinder to move since we buy it as one piece anyway. And I'm not not fond of virtual parts either.

I'm thinking of simply treating the cylinder as a single part and coming up with a naming extension that signifies a "virtual" or derived part. For example: the cylinder is PRT000123, the rod is PRT000123-D1, and the body is PRT000123-D2. Is there a reason not to do this?

Speaking of blurring the lines between assemblies and parts, is there a good reason to distinguish between them with part numbers? We can't have sub-assembly numbers match ANY part numbers because there is often multiple where-used..... If the numbers are going to be different anyway and the software can filter by assemblies vs. parts, is there a compelling reason to even use ASM prefixes? The obvious drawback is when a part becomes "promoted" to a sub-assembly because we changed vendors or need to buy a former kit as individual pieces. That said, I see good reason to at least use a DWG prefix to keep a visual connection between drawings and their associated parts.

[AlexLachance]

Our bought components are made off of 10 numbers to represent the part number of the material number.
Our fabricated components have a few way of numbering themselves.
There are products, which are designated by 2 letters, 3 numbers that represent the length of the trailer and the number of axles and a letter to represent "which version" of the product it is. These products can have parts that carry this product number as a prefix of their part number so that the person knows that the part if specific to that project.

For parts that are standard, we use a 4 letters to represent the category and then numbers to represent the part numbering. So for example, ACCE is for Accessories, so ACCE-001 would be a standard part that's in the category of accessoies.

For brute materials, such as plates, flat bars and iron angles being cut, we use a different formula that goes with the ERP number and carries the length of the part in it's name. So for example CR401-15_000 would be a cold roll pertaining to the first folder of the CR4(Cold rolls) with a length of 15".

For plates, we use a long @$$ number that gives the material type, the thickness, width and length. Here's an image that describes it quickly.

ACIER = IRON
EPAISSEUR = THICKNESS

I think the rest is easy to figure out.

[bnemec]

I cannot think of a time where one model file (prt or asm) needed more than one drawing. There are many with multiple sheets. There are many drawings that will reference a secondary model as reference in a view (which makes a mess of the reference trees when drawing nodes turned on). So our model and drawing filenames, full path for that matter, are identical except for the file extension.

I'm struggling to see why there would be more than one drawing per model. Hardware maybe?

Before starting PDM and after as well, our files do not get a part number until they are loaded into the "ERP/MRP/MES" system. Many files never get a "part number." Before PDM we had a decent process of using development numbers for file names then when the part was about to be loaded into the "ERP" system numbers would be taken out and the files would be renamed. That sounds like a big deal, but it really wasn't that bad with Design Manager file management tool from Solid Edge.
When we started into PDM it was strongly encouraged to use serial numbers to name the files. That's all well and good but the problem is they still get part numbers assigned from the "ERP" system when they get released for production and that part number is a data card variable mapped to custom property. That sounds fine until you want to see the part number in Solidworks assembly, the only place it's available is in the PDM addin. Ok, we can get over that. For non-cad users however it's difficult to correlate the part number to the serial number. For example they view an assembly in eDrawings, they can only get the file name (serial number). There may be a workaround way to finagle the part number into the files so that it can be seen in the parts list in edrawings but it's a mess and not retroactive so any existing files would not show the component part numbers. In hind sight we should have just kept renaming the files when the part gets a part number assigned, that would have been simpler and cleaner.
If you're asking "Why not just use the serial number as the part number in the "ERP" system?" The answer is Design Eng is just one department and there are some that cannot give up the dumb smart part number concept, it's too engrained in too many places of the system. It's out of my control.

[mike miller]

I cannot think of a time where one model file (prt or asm) needed more than one drawing. There are many with multiple sheets. There are many drawings that will reference a secondary model as reference in a view (which makes a mess of the reference trees when drawing nodes turned on). So our model and drawing filenames, full path for that matter, are identical except for the file extension.

I'm struggling to see why there would be more than one drawing per model. Hardware maybe?

Before starting PDM and after as well, our files do not get a part number until they are loaded into the "ERP/MRP/MES" system. Many files never get a "part number." Before PDM we had a decent process of using development numbers for file names then when the part was about to be loaded into the "ERP" system numbers would be taken out and the files would be renamed. That sounds like a big deal, but it really wasn't that bad with Design Manager file management tool from Solid Edge.
When we started into PDM it was strongly encouraged to use serial numbers to name the files. That's all well and good but the problem is they still get part numbers assigned from the "ERP" system when they get released for production and that part number is a data card variable mapped to custom property. That sounds fine until you want to see the part number in Solidworks assembly, the only place it's available is in the PDM addin. Ok, we can get over that. For non-cad users however it's difficult to correlate the part number to the serial number. For example they view an assembly in eDrawings, they can only get the file name (serial number). There may be a workaround way to finagle the part number into the files so that it can be seen in the parts list in edrawings but it's a mess and not retroactive so any existing files would not show the component part numbers. In hind sight we should have just kept renaming the files when the part gets a part number assigned, that would have been simpler and cleaner.
If you're asking "Why not just use the serial number as the part number in the "ERP" system?" The answer is Design Eng is just one department and there are some that cannot give up the dumb smart part number concept, it's too engrained in too many places of the system. It's out of my control.

Parts have multiple drawings infrequently. An example would be a drawing for machining and then for welding or forming, or vise versa. Yes, you could use a multi-sheet drawing but then you're splitting it for two departments... I know @MJuric runs into this far more frequently than we do.

An example of an assembly being used multiple times is much more common for us. One example would be using a top-level assembly to create a BOM for laser, bandsaw, welding, or machining; then using the same assembly to create assembly drawings. It doesn't make sense to put that all in one file.

If there's a good chance of a scenario happening, you might as well plan for it. If you know for sure it's going to happen, you HAVE to plan for it.

[MJuric]

What do you do for purchased parts that need to have motion such as hinges, hydraulic cylinders, and shocks? I don't particularly like to assign part numbers just for the purpose of allowing a cylinder to move since we buy it as one piece anyway. And I'm not not fond of virtual parts either.

I'm thinking of simply treating the cylinder as a single part and coming up with a naming extension that signifies a "virtual" or derived part. For example: the cylinder is PRT000123, the rod is PRT000123-D1, and the body is PRT000123-D2. Is there a reason not to do this?

In Solidworks everywhere I've ever worked purchase parts are single parts. If they need to show infinite motion then we have a configuration for the different pieces, place two copies and make sure one of them are excluded from the BOM. For parts that only need to be shown in a couple of positions, cylinders for example, it's a single part with move bodies and configs for the different positions.

Speaking of blurring the lines between assemblies and parts, is there a good reason to distinguish between them with part numbers? We can't have sub-assembly numbers match ANY part numbers because there is often multiple where-used..... If the numbers are going to be different anyway and the software can filter by assemblies vs. parts, is there a compelling reason to even use ASM prefixes? The obvious drawback is when a part becomes "promoted" to a sub-assembly because we changed vendors or need to buy a former kit as individual pieces. That said, I see good reason to at least use a DWG prefix to keep a visual connection between drawings and their associated parts.

We don't use part numbers to distinguish between a part and assembly. A part could be an assembly or a part and the part number could be the same. Our "Assemblies" are distinguished by the actual number. For instance out top most level assembly for a project will always be a -0000. The various major sub assemblies are then other thousand levels. For instance spindles are 3000, electrical 9500, guarding 7000 and so on. That is broken down even further so say our fixtures are 5000, we might have a 5100. 5200 and 5300 if the machine has three separate fixturing systems on it. Parts are then 5101,5102,5103 etc.

Well that's how our automation group does it anyway :-)

[bnemec]

Parts have multiple drawings infrequently. An example would be a drawing for machining and then for welding or forming, or vise versa. Yes, you could use a multi-sheet drawing but then you're splitting it for two departments... I know @MJuric runs into this far more frequently than we do.

I see, for us a part is a part. If there are work center changes that is covered in routing notes. We do accommodate to some level in process steps such as all of our sheet metal prints have a flat view. Also, we have moved to our welded assemblies to have one page for BOM, one for dims and another for welds; typically toolroom uses the dimension sheet, and robot programmer uses weld callout sheet. Beyond that we start slipping into the debate of the print is defining what or how; we live closer to the what side.

An example of an assembly being used multiple times is much more common for us. One example would be using a top-level assembly to create a BOM for laser, bandsaw, welding, or machining; then using the same assembly to create assembly drawings. It doesn't make sense to put that all in one file.

That sounds like a disaster. Or it's all one off orders or configured models and prints. I guess it all depends on what you're doing. If your laser, bandsaw, machining and welding are all scheduled per each top level job then I can see that way of making your models and prints.

We never schedule pc parts based on per order of the top level. It's all driven by demand. Each part is ordered and stocked by itself regardless of where it may go. If there's an order for 250 of part x they go in the bin that might have 23 pcs from last run and go on the shelf. Then over the next couple of weeks 100 may go to paint line and another 100 may go to robot welding to make part y and another 60 may go to manual welding to make part z. Those three parts may wind up on a dozen different top level numbers going out the door over the next days, weeks, or months. Or they run one other part number on a die for three shifts, stocked, and all wind up shipped in one top level number in the next week.

[mike miller]

That sounds like a disaster. Or it's all one off orders or configured models and prints. I guess it all depends on what you're doing. If your laser, bandsaw, machining and welding are all scheduled per each top level job then I can see that way of making your models and prints.

We never schedule pc parts based on per order of the top level. It's all driven by demand. Each part is ordered and stocked by itself regardless of where it may go. If there's an order for 250 of part x they go in the bin that might have 23 pcs from last run and go on the shelf. Then over the next couple of weeks 100 may go to paint line and another 100 may go to robot welding to make part y and another 60 may go to manual welding to make part z. Those three parts may wind up on a dozen different top level numbers going out the door over the next days, weeks, or months. Or they run one other part number on a die for three shifts, stocked, and all wind up shipped in one top level number in the next week.

That's because there are some fundamental differences between our shops. Here 90% of all parts are single piece flow going through a "pipeline". That's why laser needs a BOM to confirm that their nests are correct and also to serve as a checklist before the kit leaves for bending. The remaining 10% of parts are collected from Kan-Ban controlled bins, which makes a comprehensive BOM vital.

But I wasn't going to get into a deep, philosophical Theory-of-Manufacturing discussion. Oh well, now you know.

[MJuric]

That's because there are some fundamental differences between our shops.

And this is the key to why I think it's important that people stay away from the "This is the right way" mentality. The "right way" will be the way that most effectively, efficiently and economically gets the job done and since most companies have differing products and even differing methods, work flows etc even when making the same product the "Right way" will also be different.

[AlexLachance]

These kind of discussions always pick my curiosity. I'm open to hearing different methodologies because I know mine's not perfect and hearing someone else's perspective and how they apply it sometimes helps me understand the necessity in working a certain way. I can then use that knowledge to adapt it if it can fit a purpose inside the company I work for. I'm also always happy to share whatever it is I know, because sometimes that leads to someone showing me a way to do it that's more efficient.

[bnemec]

But I wasn't going to get into a deep, philosophical Theory-of-Manufacturing discussion. Oh well, now you know.

Outside my capabilities, others would need to jump in to sustain it. I like to think I can participate in such activities, but it seems in the end I always wind up in a corner eating the crayons and muttering nonsense.

[mattpeneguy]

These kind of discussions always pick my curiosity. I'm open to hearing different methodologies because I know mine's not perfect and hearing someone else's perspective and how they apply it sometimes helps me understand the necessity in working a certain way. I can then use that knowledge to adapt it if it can fit a purpose inside the company I work for. I'm also always happy to share whatever it is I know, because sometimes that leads to someone showing me a way to do it that's more efficient.

I see...Can't just help someone for their sake?...

[MJuric]

I see...Can't just help someone for their sake?...

I've always made the argument that altruism simply does not exist. All decisions made at the individual level are run thru a single brain and that brain is hard wired to protect itself. There will always be a reason that benefits that brain for any decision. Even in the case where people knowingly and purposefully sacrifice their lives, for whatever reason that brain thinks that that choice is the one that best benefits itself.

[berg_lauritz]

We're starting the process of starting to upgrade our numbering scheme and I'm wondering what approaches you take. To clarify, I'm not talking about smart vs. dumb numbers since that has already been discussed and we are currently planning to use a smart or semi-smart prefix followed by a dumb number.

My question is this: do you attempt to keep drawings for ASM0001 as DWG0001-1 and DWG0001-2, or do you simply roll up to the next number and let PDM take care of it? I know it could work either way but I'm curious how and why you use a particular method.

Problems/Solutions I personally encountered:

• PDM can generate serials for you - but it is a dumb system. Depending on your workflow (i.e. if you use save bodies, insert into part etc.) it might not be able to generate a serial for you in that specific case. Then you HAVE to manually name it. Which may lead errors (part# already in use, PDM only allows one of a kind in the vault etc.)
• Purchasing/BOM has a system in place for purchased parts that is different from just a randomly generated serial #. To make life easier in other departments we use those numbers i.e. for our material and for our purchased parts: xxx-xxxx is a number from purchasing - Bxxxxxx is a number generated from Design. Although we decided that we basically want to use sequential numbering (a.k.a. stupid numbers) from our end it may be beneficial in some cases to add intelligence when looking to other departments. Example: To make life easier for the shop we try to re-use the part number for simple cut parts (i.e. square tubes cut to length, rods cut to length etc.). If you only have dumb part numbers a simple 2x4x.25 tube that is cut to length can be ANY Bxxxxxx number. This means for BOM, that they have to add each part number to our system, get the correct material (i.e. 2x4x.25 tube with a 10ft length) and add the length. This heavily increases the work load for production because they have to look at every drawing. BOM also has to add the correct material every single time to the system for each part# (or design has to add the correct material to each drawing all the time - in this case templates are beneficial). Even adding simple intelligence to the # (i.e. Bxxxxxx-[length]) makes life so much easier for the shop/bom/purchasing & even design. You can easily use it in cut-lists by simply renaming those parts without any hassle (no need to use save bodies, generate a number etc.) - you can have one drawing for ALL of those parts with a variable in there - the shop can read it faster - saw-lists are easier to read - if you ever need to change a number for purchasing regarding all of those parts, it's easy to do - mistakes are easier to spot (wrong length, wrong tubes etc.). This may heavily depend on your system though (ERP/BOM/Purchasing etc.). So get together with them and talk to them! If you make life easier for two other departments while it is more difficult for you it is probably the right choice to do it from a business perspective.
• We added part numbers to our material list to make life easier for our BOM guys. A pressed part (that is made i.e. from plastic, wood, glue etc.) often needs to be cut to size for us. This way BOM can just take the part# as a material and add the length - done. No need to re-do everything for purchasing etc.
• Some ERP systems are stupid & it may be beneficial to add a 'which station does this part go to' intelligence to the part (i.e. Bxxxxxx-[this goes to welding, then to sanding then to paint). Again this is to make life easier for everybody that comes after you.
• If you don't re-use parts because your jobs are unique having new part numbers for everything is probably a better idea. This way the everybody has to pay attention to every part, because it's new!
• If you number revisions - name the initial version -00 or .00 and not -01/.01 - this way the revision number is the same as the number in the part naming!
• If you use weldments it's almost never a good idea to distinguish between assemblies and part numbers in your system. Is a weldment a part or an assembly? It's super hard to get this into peoples minds.

I'll stop now, because there are so many arguments for/against something. The best cause of action imho is to sit together with the other departments & ask what they need/prefer/currently use and decide for something after knowing more.

[MJuric]

I'll stop now, because there are so many arguments for/against something. The best cause of action imho is to sit together with the other departments & ask what they need/prefer/currently use and decide for something after knowing more.

^^^^^This.

I just posted something similar in the other place.

Best approach to all of these questions "File structure", "Part nomenclature", "Assembly structure" and on and on and on is to sit down, look at how you do things, talk to everyone involved on what would help them and come up with something.

Then send up a trial balloon where you have everyone play with the entire system and see what works and what doesn't. Adjust, change, redo as needed. Rinse and repeat until you have something that everyone is relatively comfortable with and that's your answer.

What works for company A could be a disaster for company B and so on.

[mike miller]

Problems/Solutions I personally encountered:

• PDM can generate serials for you - but it is a dumb system. Depending on your workflow (i.e. if you use save bodies, insert into part etc.) it might not be able to generate a serial for you in that specific case. Then you HAVE to manually name it. Which may lead errors (part# already in use, PDM only allows one of a kind in the vault etc.)
• Purchasing/BOM has a system in place for purchased parts that is different from just a randomly generated serial #. To make life easier in other departments we use those numbers i.e. for our material and for our purchased parts: xxx-xxxx is a number from purchasing - Bxxxxxx is a number generated from Design. Although we decided that we basically want to use sequential numbering (a.k.a. stupid numbers) from our end it may be beneficial in some cases to add intelligence when looking to other departments. Example: To make life easier for the shop we try to re-use the part number for simple cut parts (i.e. square tubes cut to length, rods cut to length etc.). If you only have dumb part numbers a simple 2x4x.25 tube that is cut to length can be ANY Bxxxxxx number. This means for BOM, that they have to add each part number to our system, get the correct material (i.e. 2x4x.25 tube with a 10ft length) and add the length. This heavily increases the work load for production because they have to look at every drawing. BOM also has to add the correct material every single time to the system for each part# (or design has to add the correct material to each drawing all the time - in this case templates are beneficial). Even adding simple intelligence to the # (i.e. Bxxxxxx-[length]) makes life so much easier for the shop/bom/purchasing & even design. You can easily use it in cut-lists by simply renaming those parts without any hassle (no need to use save bodies, generate a number etc.) - you can have one drawing for ALL of those parts with a variable in there - the shop can read it faster - saw-lists are easier to read - if you ever need to change a number for purchasing regarding all of those parts, it's easy to do - mistakes are easier to spot (wrong length, wrong tubes etc.). This may heavily depend on your system though (ERP/BOM/Purchasing etc.). So get together with them and talk to them! If you make life easier for two other departments while it is more difficult for you it is probably the right choice to do it from a business perspective.
• We added part numbers to our material list to make life easier for our BOM guys. A pressed part (that is made i.e. from plastic, wood, glue etc.) often needs to be cut to size for us. This way BOM can just take the part# as a material and add the length - done. No need to re-do everything for purchasing etc.
• Some ERP systems are stupid & it may be beneficial to add a 'which station does this part go to' intelligence to the part (i.e. Bxxxxxx-[this goes to welding, then to sanding then to paint). Again this is to make life easier for everybody that comes after you.
• If you don't re-use parts because your jobs are unique having new part numbers for everything is probably a better idea. This way the everybody has to pay attention to every part, because it's new!
• If you number revisions - name the initial version -00 or .00 and not -01/.01 - this way the revision number is the same as the number in the part naming!
• If you use weldments it's almost never a good idea to distinguish between assemblies and part numbers in your system. Is a weldment a part or an assembly? It's super hard to get this into peoples minds.

I'll stop now, because there are so many arguments for/against something. The best cause of action imho is to sit together with the other departments & ask what they need/prefer/currently use and decide for something after knowing more.

What it really boils down to at the end of the day is: how much changing of part numbers do you want to go through? That basically means the smarter you try to make a number the higher the probability you'll have to change it at some point due to a design change. For example, if a part number scheme looks like this: [type of part][unique number][dept flow][length][model(s) where used] you have to change the number every time some genius decides the department flow should change. On the other hand, everyone can easily see where it goes and what type of part it is.

IMHO, that's what BOMs are for. If I have a part designated as PRT001234, someone can look it up in a BOM (or in PDM) and see the material, length, mass, where used, etc., etc. If changing numbers only needed to be done in PDM it would be pretty simple. The problem is; it also has to be changed in the Lantek database for nesting, in the saw programs, and on all printed drawings, BOMs, and kit travelers. Not really fun or practical.

[MJuric]

What it really boils down to at the end of the day is: how much changing of part numbers do you want to go through? That basically means the smarter you try to make a number the higher the probability you'll have to change it at some point due to a design change. For example, if a part number scheme looks like this: [type of part][unique number][dept flow][length][model(s) where used] you have to change the number every time some genius decides the department flow should change. On the other hand, everyone can easily see where it goes and what type of part it is.

IMHO, that's what BOMs are for. If I have a part designated as PRT001234, someone can look it up in a BOM (or in PDM) and see the material, length, mass, where used, etc., etc. If changing numbers only needed to be done in PDM it would be pretty simple. The problem is; it also has to be changed in the Lantek database for nesting, in the saw programs, and on all printed drawings, BOMs, and kit travelers. Not really fun or practical.

Personally I would never tie part number to manufacturing process for the very reason you point out. We actually change part processing here daily largely due to manufacturing constraints like machine capacity, labor capacity etc etc.

If part 123456 has to be done today and "Bob", the guy who runs the machine that we usually run that part on is out sick, well then we run it on a different machine. If "Bobs" machine is booked for two months...we run it on another machine.

This also why I think, that unless you have a REALLY good reason for putting specific manufacturing processes on a print....you don't. "I want a hole here with these specifications". I really don't care how you get that hole in there as long as it meets those specifications.

[berg_lauritz]

Personally I would never tie part number to manufacturing process for the very reason you point out. We actually change part processing here daily largely due to manufacturing constraints like machine capacity, labor capacity etc etc.

If part 123456 has to be done today and "Bob", the guy who runs the machine that we usually run that part on is out sick, well then we run it on a different machine. If "Bobs" machine is booked for two months...we run it on another machine.

This also why I think, that unless you have a REALLY good reason for putting specific manufacturing processes on a print....you don't. "I want a hole here with these specifications". I really don't care how you get that hole in there as long as it meets those specifications.

I do agree with this.
But there may be instances where other programs really kick you in the nuts:
Made 2 Manage is NOT CAPABLE of assigning a part# to DIFFERENT STATIONS.
Adding intelligence behind the part# gives you those options. Yes, I know, WHY would you use this program? And the answer is always legacy and/or money.

[MJuric]

Made 2 Manage is NOT CAPABLE of assigning a part# to DIFFERENT STATIONS.

How does that even work? What do you do for parts that are run on multiple different machines?

[berg_lauritz]

How does that even work? What do you do for parts that are run on multiple different machines?

Black magic!

People have to know through experience! It creates jobs!

Please, don't put me through this, I'm suffering already!!! Have mercy!

[jcapriotti]

What do you do for purchased parts that need to have motion such as hinges, hydraulic cylinders, and shocks? I don't particularly like to assign part numbers just for the purpose of allowing a cylinder to move since we buy it as one piece anyway. And I'm not not fond of virtual parts either.

I'm thinking of simply treating the cylinder as a single part and coming up with a naming extension that signifies a "virtual" or derived part. For example: the cylinder is PRT000123, the rod is PRT000123-D1, and the body is PRT000123-D2. Is there a reason not to do this?

We use virtual components for this, works much better now in 2019 than it did several versions back when it was first introduced. We have some fairly large assemblies we purchase using this method.

Prior to virtual components, we did what you did:

100000.sldasm
100000-Bar.sldprt
100000-Plate.sldprt
100000-Screw.sldprt
etc.

You end of with a lot of files sometimes and PDM can get kind of messy with it. We tried to filter those into their own workflow so the system mostly ignores them. Now that we are in Windchill, we have no choice but to use virtual components, or assign a number to them all and run them thru a workflow.

[MJuric]

Black magic!

People have to know through experience! It creates jobs!

Please, don't put me through this, I'm suffering already!!! Have mercy!

I really feel for you for having to do that. I just can't imagine the routing being tied to the name of the part especially in an ERP/MRP system.

That would make me drink....well drink more....