W
Whyrmie
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Hi,
This looks like the right place for this question;
The company I work for is finally starting to realize that we need to
do something different with our part numbers. Using vendor or
manufacturer part numbers on our parts lists causes the inevitable
problems due to multiple sources, equivalent parts, tricky formats,
etc. In the past we've defined our own numbers for some of the more
common components (resistors and capacitors mostly), but because there
was no rhyme or reason to the numbers, and also it was nearly
impossible to find the corresponding in-house number for a part, given
the required parameters, or even if one existed. Some parts ended up
having multiple in-house numbers, and others which logically should
have been included with previously-defined numbers weren't because the
particular value wasn't required when the numbers were defined.
It was mass confusion, and still is, to a degree, because a lot of the
numbers are still being used. So the idea of using "generic" part
numbers has been suggested. Supposedly this is what most electronic
manufacturing companies do.
I think it's a great idea and could simplify things greatly, at least
for future jobs. But it seems to me that to come up with a system which
will accommodate all possibilities is going to take a lot of time,
work, trial & error, and subsequent tweaking to find out exactly which
parameters need to be encoded into the part numbers. It seems like a
colossal waste of effort, if most companies out there are already using
just such a system.
So my question is, "Does every company that uses generic part numbers
have to 're-invent the wheel' from scratch, or is there some kind of
standard system out there which can be adopted?" And where could I find
information about it?
Thanks,
.. . ... Scott . . ¶|;-D
This looks like the right place for this question;
The company I work for is finally starting to realize that we need to
do something different with our part numbers. Using vendor or
manufacturer part numbers on our parts lists causes the inevitable
problems due to multiple sources, equivalent parts, tricky formats,
etc. In the past we've defined our own numbers for some of the more
common components (resistors and capacitors mostly), but because there
was no rhyme or reason to the numbers, and also it was nearly
impossible to find the corresponding in-house number for a part, given
the required parameters, or even if one existed. Some parts ended up
having multiple in-house numbers, and others which logically should
have been included with previously-defined numbers weren't because the
particular value wasn't required when the numbers were defined.
It was mass confusion, and still is, to a degree, because a lot of the
numbers are still being used. So the idea of using "generic" part
numbers has been suggested. Supposedly this is what most electronic
manufacturing companies do.
I think it's a great idea and could simplify things greatly, at least
for future jobs. But it seems to me that to come up with a system which
will accommodate all possibilities is going to take a lot of time,
work, trial & error, and subsequent tweaking to find out exactly which
parameters need to be encoded into the part numbers. It seems like a
colossal waste of effort, if most companies out there are already using
just such a system.
So my question is, "Does every company that uses generic part numbers
have to 're-invent the wheel' from scratch, or is there some kind of
standard system out there which can be adopted?" And where could I find
information about it?
Thanks,
.. . ... Scott . . ¶|;-D
