Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.

First time visiting? Here are some places to start:
  1. Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
  2. Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
  3. Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
  4. Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.

If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.

What are your part number schemes?

Jason_SJason_S Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 219
Hi all,

Can we get some feedback on what your ideal part number schemes look like? This includes, but is not limited to how/what numbers get assigned to:
  • Parts specific to a project
  • Internal parts that are reused across projects
  • OTS/supplier parts
  • Non-geometric parts

Also, how is this managed today? Excel/Sheets? PLM? Magic eight ball?

Thanks!
Support & QA

Comments

  • adrian_vlzkzadrian_vlzkz Member Posts: 275 PRO
    edited December 2022
    We have a master PN scheme for our controlled product (in PLM) that uses an established prefix per category and a sequential autogenerated portion
    i.e:
    MT-123456 (For material)
    DWG-123456 (For Drawings)

    We're allowed to manually overwrite the sequential number, with the purpose of matching the sequential # to match related items. This exception is both good and bad, because it's logical, but creates inconsistencies.

    I've also implemented a more "meaningful" scheme for R&D projects (typically not released in PLM system), that uses Custom Properties to auto-rename parts and assemblies in CAD. It pulls the Project Name, Product type and a unique sequential identifier, for example:

    Project: Taurus
    Product type: Wearable

    Part Number:

       TAUR-Wx-1234

    There's a master table that defines the 4 character project and 2 letter product aliases. I wish there was a way in Onshape to build this type a scheme without code.


    Adrian V. | Onshape Ambassador
    CAD Engineering Manager
  • john_mcclaryjohn_mcclary Member, Developers Posts: 3,947 PRO
    We have a 3 part code for parts

    XXXX-XXX-AXXX for assemblies
    XXXX-XXX-WXXX for weldments
    XXXX-XXX-DXXX for details (parts)

    First 4 digits are the job#
    Second 3 are unit#
    Last 3 are for each item

    So if a customer needs a spare part, they can give us that number and it will point to the exact folder on the server. Since our server is a bunch of nested folders that use the same number scheme. 

    So there is no need for revisions or tracking. Every time we get a repeat order, we duplicate the job folder (relevant info at least) then make improvements from lessons learned. 

    This allows us to stay agile and make every machine custom for that customer without them worrying about revisions either. 

    I also save a link to the main Onshape assembly for each unit, so Onshape also fits comfortably next to Solidworks jobs
  • eric_pestyeric_pesty Member Posts: 2,127 PRO
    It's boring but I've been happy with our policy of just using dumb numbers: 5 digit sequential number. Never goes wrong and we just use a shared cloud XLS to keep track of assignments...
  • malay_kumarmalay_kumar Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 93
    edited December 2022
    Hi, Can you also provide some insights on assigning part numbers to standard content like nuts, bolts and other purchased parts? Do you use same/similar scheme for standard content and purchased parts also? Thanks
  • john_mcclaryjohn_mcclary Member, Developers Posts: 3,947 PRO
    We treat all purchased parts separately. 

    MFGNAME-MFG#-SHORTDESCRIPTION
    fasteners we just call out generically 

    So
    MCMASTER-CARR - 60355K708 - 1in BALL BEARING
    or
    HHCS (M8x1. 25 x 25 lg) 
  • eric_pestyeric_pesty Member Posts: 2,127 PRO
    We actually ended up setting up "Vendor" and "Vendor part number" custom properties. This also allows us to "cheat" by displaying the "vendor PN" field on BOMs (and setting ourselves as the vendor for custom rev managed parts) for different configurations of the same PN (we add a dash and extra digit when needed to the Onshape part number to denote different configurations of things that should have the same PN), or to be able to use the same number for a sheet metal part and the part+PEMs.

  • adrian_vlzkzadrian_vlzkz Member Posts: 275 PRO
    edited December 2022
    @mike_bosscher In my experience the better system is more of a hybrid one, where there's some intelligence in the "Generation" of Part Numbers, but the meaning is "soft".

    Think of a cars VIN number of a car, for a casual citizen is just a long number, but for the DMV, Law enforcement, and car service industry, the meaning ads a lot of value.

    Not every employee in an organization needs to be trained or has to understand the meaning if it ads no value to their function, they can treat that number just a X amount of character, just like they would a sequential numeric component. 

    The simplicity of a meaningless numbers has implications downstream, many department only get a PDF of a drawing and no metadata, in order for most of them the get the custom property information, also would represent adicional software cost, and in my experience when you have 300 engineers spread over 20 different teams and multiple site, you also need a software system to generate and manage the simplest of numbering schemes.

    The problem with "smart" numbers is when they are poorly designed, like in the cases you mentioned; but I wouldn'y discard a concept just because it has been poorly implemented. Any data that could "change" thru the lifecycle of part, (sheet size, mfg process, site...) should not be part of a ID number for a component.
    Adrian V. | Onshape Ambassador
    CAD Engineering Manager
  • shawn_crockershawn_crocker Member, OS Professional Posts: 884 PRO
    Anything that isn't a top level product, is just a dumb number that has no meaning.  Our designers are not allowed to create part numbers for the top level product.  Our company seems to think the sales team should do that.  They have this ridiculous coding system that basically breaks all it own rules with any product that is custom built.  We designers are constantly having to go back into a product and obsolete the top level part number and change it to something else because sales messed it up.  And incredibly, every time it happens(almost every day) they truly believe, whole heartedly, that the change is completely necessary and there is know other way that could possibly be better!  And the thought is that somehow, people making stuff, who have a full suit of drawings before them, detailing everything they need to know to manufacture the thing, will somehow get confused because the part number doesn't line up with logic they are barely aware exists!  I constantly here conversations in the context of the idea, "we really need to straighten out our coding system and improve its logic".  On countless occasions I have attempted to impart a simplified logic supporting the advantage and ability to simply let part numbers be and focus on what is important.  What you want at the end of the day is to be able to logically sift through stuff and find what you need.  If you create logic in a part number, that need is still met but increases paperwork loads when something needs to be reassigned or recategorized.  You can also create that same logic in a description property or possibly create special properties that represent the categorization groups you are needing.  Then, when a change needs to be made to the categorization of an item, it is beyond the revision controlled system and can just easily be edited without having to edit a long revision managed trail.
  • john_mcclaryjohn_mcclary Member, Developers Posts: 3,947 PRO
    @shawn_crocker

    Never let the sales team manage anything! 

    The Engineering team should create and manage all parts and part numbers. If the sales team wants to create a part number that noly makes sense to them, then have them create a spreadsheet or something that points to the actual part number. 
  • shawn_crockershawn_crocker Member, OS Professional Posts: 884 PRO
    @shawn_crocker

    Never let the sales team manage anything! 

    The Engineering team should create and manage all parts and part numbers. If the sales team wants to create a part number that noly makes sense to them, then have them create a spreadsheet or something that points to the actual part number. 
    Totally agree! There reasoning is that somehow there customers apparently expect to get a part number immediately which is very questionable to me.  The wild thing about how our top level part numbers are created is that even the overall dimensions of the product are included in part numbers.  So any change that is made that changes those dimensions means the part number keeps changing all through the development.  Of course, the drawing number remains the same so there is something that is tying the development together but still, it has always seemed Ludacris to me.
  • adrian_vlzkzadrian_vlzkz Member Posts: 275 PRO
    @shawn_crocker

    Never let the sales team manage anything! 

    The Engineering team should create and manage all parts and part numbers. If the sales team wants to create a part number that noly makes sense to them, then have them create a spreadsheet or something that points to the actual part number. 
    Totally agree! There reasoning is that somehow there customers apparently expect to get a part number immediately which is very questionable to me.  The wild thing about how our top level part numbers are created is that even the overall dimensions of the product are included in part numbers.  So any change that is made that changes those dimensions means the part number keeps changing all through the development.  Of course, the drawing number remains the same so there is something that is tying the development together but still, it has always seemed Ludacris to me.
    Yikes!
    Adrian V. | Onshape Ambassador
    CAD Engineering Manager
Sign In or Register to comment.