We create a MISC category and review it from time to time, if there are more than a few items in it that all can be categorized in a way that makes sense, we create a new category at that point.
2 Likes
Situations where i changed the part number: I created one, saw that is was wrong and changed it. Before it was used anywhere.
Even when you don’t want to allow changed, the user given string should not be a key in your database. This is bad practice and it is slower.
Maybe we are talking about different concepts here.
In the systems I have used, internal part number (shortened to “part number” in my other posts, and different from Manufacturer’s part number or MPN) is not something user-given – the PLM system generates it for the user.
2 Likes
I refined the PN document some after this and various other discussions.
The TLDR is that part numbers are really designed for human use, not machine, so they should be optimized as such. Another revelation is to call them “semi-structured” part numbers instead of structured – that really defines best what most people are doing.
Thanks for all the input thus far!
My experience was with a simple unique number, about 7 digits ISTR.
It was important that this did not include revision as half the reason for its use was that component standards could add new vendors or change a suppliers part number without having to modify BOMs.
Any change that was not backwards compatible would mean a new house number was created.
1 Like
Keep it simple. Trying to make your internal part numbers meaningful by incorporating part parameters is inevitably going to fail at some point because either something will come along that just doesn’t fit, or something will come along that is close enough to an existing part that it ends up with the same number, because the distinguishing parameter is not part of the part number formula.
If you must, use broad classifications (eg Electrical / Mechanical, Pcb etc) then just add sequential numbering. The part number then becomes an index into a database that holds all the other data.
2 Likes
By the way, it might be beneficial to use UUID version 4 (random) as internal partnumbers. The advantage is that UUID4 may be generated anywhere by anyone and still they all will be unique (i.e. no duplications)
That is an interesting idea – being able to have multiple people generate numbers without collisions would be handy. The drawback is UUIDs are long – good for computers, but difficult for humans to process when dealing with parts out on the plant floor, etc.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.