Sarah,
I revamped about 85% of our part number system when we went live
last year, creating a single part number system for 3 manufacturing
departments. (We had some parts with three different part numbers
and we are a single operating site.) Most of the new part numbers
are "semi-smart". It was too difficult to identify all possible
alternatives to every family of parts. Our semi-smart part numbers
get you close (ES3000 to ES3999 are Electronic Switches - Pushbutton
type, ES8000 to ES8999 are Electronic Switches - Toggle type).
The only parts that we can completely identify from the part number
are raw stock materials (rods, sheets, tubes, etc.) These parts are
identified by material code, material grade and 1 or 2 dimensions.
Beyond 3 or 4 variables, the number gets too complicated to be
helpful. (This is from a guy who loves to overcomplicate things.)
If someone has to refer to a reference sheet to remember the system,
it doesn't gain you much. We focused on creating consistent part
descriptions so searching was easier. Inch, IN, ", In., and Inches
all became IN.
If you have any questions or want to bounce some ideas off someone,
feel free to contact me off-line.
Michael Randolph
Purchasing Manager
American Magnetics, Inc.
michael.randolph@...
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "svareschi" <sarah.vareschi@n...>
wrote:
I revamped about 85% of our part number system when we went live
last year, creating a single part number system for 3 manufacturing
departments. (We had some parts with three different part numbers
and we are a single operating site.) Most of the new part numbers
are "semi-smart". It was too difficult to identify all possible
alternatives to every family of parts. Our semi-smart part numbers
get you close (ES3000 to ES3999 are Electronic Switches - Pushbutton
type, ES8000 to ES8999 are Electronic Switches - Toggle type).
The only parts that we can completely identify from the part number
are raw stock materials (rods, sheets, tubes, etc.) These parts are
identified by material code, material grade and 1 or 2 dimensions.
Beyond 3 or 4 variables, the number gets too complicated to be
helpful. (This is from a guy who loves to overcomplicate things.)
If someone has to refer to a reference sheet to remember the system,
it doesn't gain you much. We focused on creating consistent part
descriptions so searching was easier. Inch, IN, ", In., and Inches
all became IN.
If you have any questions or want to bounce some ideas off someone,
feel free to contact me off-line.
Michael Randolph
Purchasing Manager
American Magnetics, Inc.
michael.randolph@...
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "svareschi" <sarah.vareschi@n...>
wrote:
> Speaking of Tool Crib, I was wondering how others number theirtooling
> in Vantage? For example, we have literally hundreds of differentspecific
> endmills that we stock and even more that we purchase for a
> job. Originally, these were entered into the system usingmanufacturer
> part#, but when we switch manufacturers this becomes an issue aswe
> have to inactivate that number and create a new one - causing morework
> and losing traceability. So, we've been re-thinking this. We aremills
> looking into smart Part#'s, but because of all the details of the
> that differentiate them, these numbers are getting very long andhow
> complex and seem maybe not the best way to go. I'm just curios
> others are solving this issue?
>
> Thanks!
> Sarah