Part Theory - Intelligent vs. Non-Intelligent & Other Decisions

Yahoo Archive
1

Ken,

One suggestion….maybe instead of focusing on an intelligent part # scheme, focus on intelligent part descriptions!  God knows you can fit most of what you need these days in the part description field.  The only bad thing would be when you print out your documentation.

Manasa

 

 

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 10:45 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Part Theory - Intelligent vs. Non-Intelligent & Other Decisions to be Made

 

 

Ken,

 

We have a somewhat similar situation.  Your new part entry process sounds like this - Find similar part numbers, select the best candidate from this list, copy it into the new part number, then make the necessary tweaks.

 

Many years ago before acquiring Vantage we created a set of tables in MS Access to describe our parts in detail (Build to Order Printed Circuit Boards).  We now have 22,000+ parts that could have up to 300 attributes across several tables.  When a new part number is entered we simply must find parts with related characteristics to determine what manufacturing “lessons” have already been learned.  If not we would be prone to repeat small nuanced mistakes over again.

 

At one point in time we thought of creating these tables in Vantage’s Progress database but the Progress programming tools were weak.  We instead ported to SQL Server and wrote our own applications first in C# and .NET.

 

Vantage is still on Progress but we use Entity Framework and OpenEdge to provide a seamless solution.

 

And what if a customer changes their specification and we need to update 823 part numbers?  The icing on the cake is I can do mass updates on the PartOpr table (Methods) for any combination of attributes and ad-hoc process sequence bocks.  BOM items are synchronized to the new OprSeq number, etc… relational integrity remains intact…  5 minutes done.

 

My 2 cents - If it’s important to your business make the appropriate investment.

 

 

Jeff Lewis CID+

Director of IT/Engineering

Holaday Circuits Inc

11126 Bren Road West

Minnetonka, MN 55343

www.holaday.com

 

 

 

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:30 AM
To: vantage
Subject: [Vantage] Part Theory - Intelligent vs. Non-Intelligent & Other Decisions to be Made

 

 

We have a few theories running around.  I'm wondering if anyone out there is in a similar business/circumstance as we are that may have tackled this issue and has some learnings of their own to share.

 

We are a custom engineer to order manufacturer.  We have ~10,000 parts in our part master, and 10x that that we've used on BOMs over the years as a part of "one-offs" that need to be purchased.

 

We're trying to do a few things by looking at our part system.  First, clean-up the bad parts/duplicate parts.  Second, create a system that allows for non-part masters to follow a system when it makes sense (which is often).

 

This system needs to make it easy to build a BOM with many styles of parts.  It also needs to be easy for all non-engineering folk to understand and navigate the BOM.

 

Some examples of our ideas to generate discussion:

 

1. We've historically had a flat BOM, we're entertaining utilizing subassemblies to better categorize the BOM.  These won't be true subassemblies, but rather methods of separating engineering and part types.  For example, we'll have a mechanical section that will include steel, fasteners, and other material for the structure of our equipment.  We'll have an electrical section to include breakers, relays, etc..  We'll have a cable section to include cable tray, cable, wire, etc..  None of these are true subassemblies, but it should make monitoring the accuracy of the BOM (both generating and kitting) easier and allow.

 

2. We're looking at utilizing intelligent part schemes with a system to populate even if they're not in the system.  Many of our parts have many options that we could break into an intelligent scheme, so a person could select each attribute of the part and end up with a standard part - even if it's not in the system.  I love the concept here, I'm struggling with how to implement such a system.  For a simple example, elbows for piping have 6 attributes including things like radius, angle, & size.  We would make each of these selectable, so a person who wanted an Elbow with a standard ridus, 90 degree angle and 2.5" diameter would enter EL-ST-90-2" for a part #.  The downside is that the only way I can see this working is through a lot of dropdowns, and those drop downs & headers have to change when you move from elbows to cable to steel.  The great side is for everyone involved in the process moving forward it's much easier.  This example is simple, yet it has 480 combinations alone.  As they grow in options the combinations grow into the thousands easily.  To just populate every combination would balloon our part database to millions of parts most of which would never get used.

 

I'd love to hear any thoughts on what we're trying to do and lessons to be relayed so we don't have to learn the hard way.

 

Thanks in advance for getting through the long read and providing feedback.

 

Ken Williams
Vice President, Administrative Services
Intermountain Electronics - Power, Automation, and Process Systems
Office: 435-613-4817 |  Mobile: 801-918-7318
kwilliams@... | www.ie-corp.com

IMPORTANT NOTICE FROM API: This communication, including any attachments, contains information that may be confidential or privileged and is intended solely for the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorized disclosure, copying or distribution of this message is strictly prohibited.

IMPORTANT NOTICE FROM API: This communication, including any attachments, contains information that may be confidential or privileged and is intended solely for the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorized disclosure, copying or distribution of this message is strictly prohibited.
2
We have a few theories running around. I'm wondering if anyone out there is in a similar business/circumstance as we are that may have tackled this issue and has some learnings of their own to share.

We are a custom engineer to order manufacturer. We have ~10,000 parts in our part master, and 10x that that we've used on BOMs over the years as a part of "one-offs" that need to be purchased.

We're trying to do a few things by looking at our part system. First, clean-up the bad parts/duplicate parts. Second, create a system that allows for non-part masters to follow a system when it makes sense (which is often).

This system needs to make it easy to build a BOM with many styles of parts. It also needs to be easy for all non-engineering folk to understand and navigate the BOM.

Some examples of our ideas to generate discussion:

1. We've historically had a flat BOM, we're entertaining utilizing subassemblies to better categorize the BOM. These won't be true subassemblies, but rather methods of separating engineering and part types. For example, we'll have a mechanical section that will include steel, fasteners, and other material for the structure of our equipment. We'll have an electrical section to include breakers, relays, etc.. We'll have a cable section to include cable tray, cable, wire, etc.. None of these are true subassemblies, but it should make monitoring the accuracy of the BOM (both generating and kitting) easier and allow.

2. We're looking at utilizing intelligent part schemes with a system to populate even if they're not in the system. Many of our parts have many options that we could break into an intelligent scheme, so a person could select each attribute of the part and end up with a standard part - even if it's not in the system. I love the concept here, I'm struggling with how to implement such a system. For a simple example, elbows for piping have 6 attributes including things like radius, angle, & size. We would make each of these selectable, so a person who wanted an Elbow with a standard ridus, 90 degree angle and 2.5" diameter would enter EL-ST-90-2" for a part #. The downside is that the only way I can see this working is through a lot of dropdowns, and those drop downs & headers have to change when you move from elbows to cable to steel. The great side is for everyone involved in the process moving forward it's much easier. This example is simple, yet it has 480 combinations alone. As they grow in options the combinations grow into the thousands easily. To just populate every combination would balloon our part database to millions of parts most of which would never get used.

I'd love to hear any thoughts on what we're trying to do and lessons to be relayed so we don't have to learn the hard way.

Thanks in advance for getting through the long read and providing feedback.

Ken Williams
Vice President, Administrative Services
Intermountain Electronics - Power, Automation, and Process Systems
Office:Â 435-613-4817Â |Â Â Mobile:Â 801-918-7318
kwilliams@... |Â www.ie-corp.com
3
As a developer I am not a fan of intelligent part numbers as they usually break at some point.  A simplistic example. If the third digit means color for example and you limit it to integers you can only have 10 colors.  if you have only offered 6 colors since the beginning of time you may think you are covered.  But your competitor just added the option for 100 color choices. Even if we change it to allow letters and integers, you get 36 colors.  What if you wanted to offer mix your own color?  

Ideally a part number is just a unique identifier for a part.  All of its attributes are stored in other fields (color, length, width, etc).  This allows those attributes to change if needed without needing a new part number.

As a custom shop you might consider using the product configurator.  You get the benefit of the user making selections based on attributes and the result is a Method of Manufacturing to make the item.  The choices the user has available are controlled by table values which allow you to easily add as many colors as you like.  The color choice would be linked either to the part number for the paint color or the formula to make the color.

Using the product configurator you only configure an item when it is ordered. If no one ever orders periwinkle no part with that color will be created.  

You have the choice of the resulting item to be a part on the fly in that it doesn't get put into the part master.  Or the product configurator can make a real permanent part in the part master if the customer may order it again.

Jim Kinneman
Encompass Solutions, Inc
 
4
If you are going to go through all the trouble of building the drop downs, then I would just create all the parts you can think of in excel, and DMT into Epicor. We are a custom fab shop and do a lot of work with Pipe, insulation, electrical, etc. For our pipe parts, we came up with a naming scheme that made it easy for our engineers to understand what they are getting, then we generated all the possible combinations and loaded them into Epicor. Sure we have a lot of parts that probably haven't been used yet, but they are already there for the user and consistently named.

I would definitely second the configurator idea. They take some time to build, but they can help make sure you are generating consistent information each time. 

-Bobby
5

Something to consider with an intelligent numbering system is that once you assign a number you can't change it so the intelligence you built into the number can't change...ever! If in the future it becomes apparent that you need more information in the number (e.g. more colours, different categories, pressure rating on the pipes etc.) You cant change the part numbers of existing items to include the new attributes so you will have issues there.

I am a firm believer that part numbers are unique identifies and nothing else! I also believe that storing extra information is also a good thing - just don't put it in the part number. Put it in other fields, you can then edit, add or remove fields as you please when ever you want without affecting the existing part numbers.

If your users want the additional information you can show it to them by: adding the extra fields to bin labels, add drop down boxes in screens in Epicor, even stamp them on the part if they are that important. You can still filter part searches based on the attributes that would be put in an intelligent number.

Brett
6

A Part Schema is important in any organization. That Schema should be reviewed for its relevancy on a standard periodic basis. The schema should be published and everyone that is allowed to create parts needs to sign off on it. Make sure that schema looks into the future.

 

Remember that the part number is just an identifier and that the description should also have some consistency as well. Remember that you can search on descriptions using a word search. Consistent words in their use makes searching much easier.

 

Don’t forget your part classes. Part classes not only segment your inventory but also aids in finding parts. Be general at first but have ways of fine tuning your classes to make them easier to use.

 

I don’t care if you have a million parts in your database. If you can’t find them, they are all useless.

 

Charlie Smith

CTCharlie@...

Cell: 860-919-1708

Office: 817-862-9862

 

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 9:25 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Part Theory - Intelligent vs. Non-Intelligent & Other Decisions to be Made

 

 

 

Something to consider with an intelligent numbering system is that once you assign a number you can't change it so the intelligence you built into the number can't change...ever! If in the future it becomes apparent that you need more information in the number (e.g. more colours, different categories, pressure rating on the pipes etc.) You cant change the part numbers of existing items to include the new attributes so you will have issues there.

 

I am a firm believer that part numbers are unique identifies and nothing else! I also believe that storing extra information is also a good thing - just don't put it in the part number. Put it in other fields, you can then edit, add or remove fields as you please when ever you want without affecting the existing part numbers.

 

If your users want the additional information you can show it to them by: adding the extra fields to bin labels, add drop down boxes in screens in Epicor, even stamp them on the part if they are that important. You can still filter part searches based on the attributes that would be put in an intelligent number.

 

Brett

7

Ken,

 

We have a somewhat similar situation.  Your new part entry process sounds like this - Find similar part numbers, select the best candidate from this list, copy it into the new part number, then make the necessary tweaks.

 

Many years ago before acquiring Vantage we created a set of tables in MS Access to describe our parts in detail (Build to Order Printed Circuit Boards).  We now have 22,000+ parts that could have up to 300 attributes across several tables.  When a new part number is entered we simply must find parts with related characteristics to determine what manufacturing “lessons” have already been learned.  If not we would be prone to repeat small nuanced mistakes over again.

 

At one point in time we thought of creating these tables in Vantage’s Progress database but the Progress programming tools were weak.  We instead ported to SQL Server and wrote our own applications first in C# and .NET.

 

Vantage is still on Progress but we use Entity Framework and OpenEdge to provide a seamless solution.

 

And what if a customer changes their specification and we need to update 823 part numbers?  The icing on the cake is I can do mass updates on the PartOpr table (Methods) for any combination of attributes and ad-hoc process sequence bocks.  BOM items are synchronized to the new OprSeq number, etc… relational integrity remains intact…  5 minutes done.

 

My 2 cents - If it’s important to your business make the appropriate investment.

 

 

Jeff Lewis CID+

Director of IT/Engineering

Holaday Circuits Inc

11126 Bren Road West

Minnetonka, MN 55343

www.holaday.com

 

 

 

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:30 AM
To: vantage
Subject: [Vantage] Part Theory - Intelligent vs. Non-Intelligent & Other Decisions to be Made

 

 

We have a few theories running around.  I'm wondering if anyone out there is in a similar business/circumstance as we are that may have tackled this issue and has some learnings of their own to share.

 

We are a custom engineer to order manufacturer.  We have ~10,000 parts in our part master, and 10x that that we've used on BOMs over the years as a part of "one-offs" that need to be purchased.

 

We're trying to do a few things by looking at our part system.  First, clean-up the bad parts/duplicate parts.  Second, create a system that allows for non-part masters to follow a system when it makes sense (which is often).

 

This system needs to make it easy to build a BOM with many styles of parts.  It also needs to be easy for all non-engineering folk to understand and navigate the BOM.

 

Some examples of our ideas to generate discussion:

 

1. We've historically had a flat BOM, we're entertaining utilizing subassemblies to better categorize the BOM.  These won't be true subassemblies, but rather methods of separating engineering and part types.  For example, we'll have a mechanical section that will include steel, fasteners, and other material for the structure of our equipment.  We'll have an electrical section to include breakers, relays, etc..  We'll have a cable section to include cable tray, cable, wire, etc..  None of these are true subassemblies, but it should make monitoring the accuracy of the BOM (both generating and kitting) easier and allow.

 

2. We're looking at utilizing intelligent part schemes with a system to populate even if they're not in the system.  Many of our parts have many options that we could break into an intelligent scheme, so a person could select each attribute of the part and end up with a standard part - even if it's not in the system.  I love the concept here, I'm struggling with how to implement such a system.  For a simple example, elbows for piping have 6 attributes including things like radius, angle, & size.  We would make each of these selectable, so a person who wanted an Elbow with a standard ridus, 90 degree angle and 2.5" diameter would enter EL-ST-90-2" for a part #.  The downside is that the only way I can see this working is through a lot of dropdowns, and those drop downs & headers have to change when you move from elbows to cable to steel.  The great side is for everyone involved in the process moving forward it's much easier.  This example is simple, yet it has 480 combinations alone.  As they grow in options the combinations grow into the thousands easily.  To just populate every combination would balloon our part database to millions of parts most of which would never get used.

 

I'd love to hear any thoughts on what we're trying to do and lessons to be relayed so we don't have to learn the hard way.

 

Thanks in advance for getting through the long read and providing feedback.

 

Ken Williams
Vice President, Administrative Services
Intermountain Electronics - Power, Automation, and Process Systems
Office: 435-613-4817 |  Mobile: 801-918-7318
kwilliams@... | www.ie-corp.com