Connecting manufacturing professionals to drive continuous improvement!
Intelligent vs. Non-Intelligent P/N' - what's the better choice?
When migrating from legacy ERP to a modern system such as Oracle or SAP, does it make sense to implement intelligent part numbers or to use an automated system with random part numbers?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by chicago-industrial on -
I don't know of any success stories using random numbers.
In fact, I tend to pull business away from component manufacturers that implemented the random scheme.
Jason
-
Permalink Reply by Jos Voskuil on -
Jason, can you explain why intelligent partnumbers are important for you and how you deal with them coming from various component manufacturers ?
-
Permalink Reply by Marcel Matte on -
Being a solution provider for both PLM and ERP systems I've seen many instances where our customers intelligent part numbers have failed at some point. I recommend using the search capabilities available in the tools to search on attributes and go with the sequential part numbering. [I think if you look back in time people went with Intelligent P/N's because the systems around them weren't so intelligent - ie, Excel, Notebooks, etc]
-
Permalink Reply by Richard on -
Reading everyone’s response to this blog the past 2 months shows some frustration in both smart part numbers and dumb part numbers. I have to agree with most of the issues that are listed in the blog; though I didn’t see much regarding better alternatives. I would like to suggest that better part descriptions and part attributes should replace the need to use smart part numbers to find things. Better descriptions are more valuable to more people to help determine what something is in ERP systems and part attributes are even better for finding parts in a PLM or component management system. Both solutions are scalable, easy to use and don’t require special local knowledge to know what something is. Part attributes are required if a company wants to promote better part re-use, use of standard parts or preferred parts management. Based on my past experience, the key to implementing better descriptions and part attributes is to classify your parts against a standard part classification, either one your create or use an industry standard structure. I recommend any parts a company buys from suppliers are classified with attributes, at least that way you can mitigate buying duplicates or very similar items from different suppliers. I also recommend any new parts created are properly classified with attributes before they are approved for release. Both of these practices can save a company a lot of money, with recurring savings and reduce the dependency on smart part numbers.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Pearcey on -
I'm split on this. We recently changed to non-intelligent numbering when migrating to a new system. Many users are hesitant to use the non-intelligent numbering. Simple intelligence such as prefixes can be very handy when filtering lots of info. For non-intelligent numbers, you need a good search tool and standard nonmenclature for creating part descriptions, ie, major noun, function, supporting criteria, etc. We're getting used to the new scheme but it just adds to the documentation challenge!
-
Permalink Reply by Richard on
-
Robert, I would be interested in knowing what you are using for a search solution? Also, how are you classifying your parts with technical attributes...is this drivin by standard part categories? I can appreciate how hard it is to get engineers off of intellegent part numbers, I think its the right move long term.
-
Permalink Reply by Jonathan Scott on -
Has anyone looked at industry standard classification schemas? I have heard of something like this from Rosetta Net, but I don't know of anyone using something like this nor do I have any idea how practical something like that might be. It seems logical to me that classifying using a community-developed schema will yield better results than implementing your own one-off schema. But I am interested to know if anyone has done something like this.
-
Permalink Reply by Jos Voskuil on
-
Jonathan hi, although the discussion is on intelligent/non-intelligent part numbers, I agree that classification is usually considered when introducing PDM or PLM. Recently I wrote a post about it in my blog: http://virtualdutchman.com/2008/11/16/classification/
In general it was a response on discussions around classification in different forums (Linked-In / Techclarity). Overal the world there are various classification standards, some are regional, others global and all of them are industry specific. So is Rosetta Net more associated with the hightech industry.
I am always in doubt about introducing a new classification at a customer, as it requires a lot of work and maintanance for the customer to get started - so what will be the ROI ?
More modern techniques like tagging information seem to become more relevant - see also my blog post, although i will soon publish some more details about various ways of classification and how to deal with that specificly in ENOVIA SmarTeam as it is part of one of the cases I am working on.
-
Permalink Reply by Menk Slot on -
I think that Rosetta Net is more focusing on Standards for the supply Chain.
Classification will always a big discussion. There are some software suppliers who claim they can classify a product from the CAD System. an example for this is a German Company "CADENAS". I know they are running some pilots at Customer sites, but if they are succesfull?
you can always check there site (http://www.cadenas.co.uk/index_main.asp)
Good luck
Menk Slot
www.plmconsult.nl
-
Permalink Reply by Richard on
-
I have been helping companies deploy classifications over the years and I notice a trend. Typically the items you want to classify most are common purchased parts, this will help improve our sourcing effectiveness with suppliers. Our company has worked with 3rd party content providers like IHS (Information Handling Services) and they provide industry standard classifications (including attributes) for these type of parts....that way your engineers are not spending valuable time re-creating the wheel. To classify the items your company designs you then have to rely on a developing your own classification to support your own products. So I think the long winded answer is a hybrid model. The consortium driven schemas, like UNSPSC or ECCMA, are driven by procurement to help with high level spend analysis, at a comodity level typically. I dont find those schemas too helpful for those companies looking too promote re-use in engineering...they are too high level and they dont even include attributes.
-
Permalink Reply by Brett Middlefield on -
As has already been noted, the better choice depends on where you live in the organization, where your organization is headed, and the amount of resources available to support your decisions. That said, we ended up with a pretty nice compromise solution by using a hybrid part numbering system.
It's an intelligent part numbering system, but all of the formats make use of the same numbering sequence. The beauty of this is that folks like me (engineers) are happy cause we have significance in the part numbering system. And the folks that don't like smart part numbering systems can just refer to the sequence value. The real beauty of this is that it provides some protection against the "future doom" predicted by the folks who don't like intelligent part numbering systems. Since every part has a unique sequence value across all formats, if we ever reach the point where our system becomes too hard to maintain, we can drop the intelligent portions of the number and just use the sequence value... basically, it makes for a very easy conversion if this ever comes to pass.
We got the idea for this hybrid system from part-numbering.com. And we've been using their service to generate the part numbers for our ERP system. It's worked out really well for us.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2010 Created by Paul Patterson.
