|
|
|
07/25/2012 12:48 PM
|
|
|
Does anyone have any information or experience for standardizing part naming conventions? This would fall under the standardization category for lean implementation. We have a log of part numbers whose descriptions have no standardized convention. People can just make up whatever they choose at the moment and it makes searching for specific types of tooling difficult. I work in the tooling department, and we make a lot of custom tools to help production assembly. Any information would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
07/26/2012 11:32 AM
|
|
|
There are many, many ways to develop smart part numbers.
To reduce human interpretation errors, consider using at least 3 characters to correspond with a part characteristic, within a standard pattern.
For example, let's say the parts are blue 25 OD x 12 ID x 3 mm tk washers. The smart part# could be WSH025-012-003BLU.
This pattern is more robust than W25123B.
|
|
|
|
|
07/27/2012 11:26 AM
|
|
|
Ben,
What sort of problems are you seeing?
|
|
|
|
|
07/30/2012 03:42 PM
|
|
|
The problem we're having is that a tool that is currently being used in production can either have the tool number on it or not. They can get covered in paint or just worn off. So, when a tool designer gets a request to duplicate an existing tool being used, if we don't know the tool # we're basically shooting in the dark when searching for it in our tool part # database. What I guess I'm asking is if anyone has come up with or worked with a system for creating and maintaining a standardized part description database where there is some uniform way to describe a part and have control over what parts can be named. I'm not looking for specifics about how to name parts, but more of a strategy/guideline/template for setting up a system to avoid the creation of random part descriptions ie, how do you control a database so that people are forced to follow standardized naming conventions. Poke yoke for standard naming conventions.
|
|
|
|
|
08/01/2012 10:52 AM
|
|
|
Since you're not looking for specifics about how to name parts, I won't go there.
Well, maybe just a little, but only to mention that there are two fundamental types of numbering systems. There are intelligent systems, those that have some information about the part embedded within them, and non-intelligent systems, those where the number bears no information about the part.
Each type has its pros and cons. Here are a few blog notes on that subject, one from a consulting firm and two from a supplier of manufacturing software. (note: I have no connection with either of them, I just stumbled on them Googling and their comments mostly coincide with my own experience.)
http://www.loganconsulting.com...umber-Conventions.aspx
http://www.arenasolutions.com/...rticles/part-numbering
http://www.arenasolutions.com/...mbering-winning-debate
Anyway, if I read you correctly, what you're asking for isn't a naming convention at all, but rather a systematic method for controlling whatever naming convention you may choose?
One problem you mentioned was of one-way data linkage, if you have the part number you can get to the rest of the information about the part, but having a piece of information can't get you to the part number.
That's a classic database function and architecturally easy to fix. You just need to structure the database and store the linkages. I say architecturally easy because controlling behavior is an entirely different animal.
People don't actively try to think up "bad" part numbers. But in the absence of an obvious systematic method they'll make due.
To get people to follow the system you need to make the process very clear and practical. It needs to be easier to do right that to do wrong. That takes a great deal of organizational discipline to build and maintain (regardless of whether the system paper based or computer based).
Note that I said organizational discipline, not personal discipline on the part of the users. Many companies try to push a clumsy, inefficient or broken system off onto their users and expect them to "deal with it."
Just as with any other process, the organization must be willing to make it "business as usual," to expect that it be done that way and to not accept otherwise. The organization must be willing to support the process, clear obstacles and solve problems if they want people to take it seriously.
One thing I consider mandatory (in practice, although I suppose you could theoretically do it differently) is to have one central master controller for all part numbers. Nobody gets to use any number unless they get it from or clear it with the master controller. This may sound oppressive, but it's absolutely necessary to prevent missing or conflicting numbers.
It doesn't matter whether they're intelligent or non-intelligent numbers, they must be centrally controlled to avoid systemic ambiguity. Think of it as a "true north" for part numbers.
The trick is to make it very easy for users to get those numbers quickly and painlessly from whoever (or whatever) controls them.
Sorry if some of this sounds theoretical. Without knowing details of your organization I can't get too specific. But I can assure you that it can be directly and practically applied.
pc2
|
|
|
|
|
08/01/2012 01:44 PM
|
|
|
Excellent! You've made some good points here. It all makes sense and I agree with you. I believe you've given me something to move forward with. There are some company specific decisions to make yet, but as far as the methodology for controlling a database, I think we can start in the right direction. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
08/02/2012 02:01 PM
|
|
|
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
08/09/2012 10:34 AM
|
|
|
Ben,
In response to your problem with part number being faded or covered on the tool, a 5S styled shadow board with the part number on the place the tool belongs can help to identify the tool for future reference. This assumes that the tool resides in one location only, not thrown into a tool box heap.
Dan
|
|
|
|
>
Community >
Forums
Send to a Friend
