A blog by Oleg Shilovitsky
Information & Comments about Engineering and Manufacturing Software

Existing data prevents companies to improve Part Numbers?

Existing data prevents companies to improve Part Numbers?
Oleg
Oleg
15 August, 2014 | 2 min for reading

historical-part-numbers

Part Numbers is a fascinating topic. I’m coming back to blog about what is the best approach to manage Part Numbers. My last post about it was – Part Numbers are hard. How to think about data first? was just few weeks ago. In that article, I outlined few principles how to keep PN separate from surrounding data focusing on different aspects of parts – description, classification, configurations, suppliers, etc.

Yesterday, my attention  was caught by ThomasNet article – Are Part Numbers Too Smart for Their Own Good? The article nailed down a key issue why companies are still having difficulties with management of Part Numbers. Nothing works from scratch in engineering companies. Complexity of characteristics and history of existing Part Numbers and products are making real difficulties to adopt new PN management concepts. The following passage explains the problem:

Another problem with descriptive numbering is that the description can become out of date and irrelevant over time. Individual parts can have their own life cycles; if a part has been identified according to the product, what happens if that product is discontinued but the part continues to be used in a newer product? Or what if a manufacturer changes vendors and the part number contains the name of the vendor that originally provided the piece?

Gilhooley admits that some Ultra Consultants clients have decided that switching from descriptive to auto-generated numbering would require too much organizational change. Some companies stick with old systems, and some opt for hybrid systems that perhaps retain descriptive numbers for existing parts but use auto-generated numbers for new parts.

It looks like there is no single solution or best practice to solve the problem. The “traditional” engineering approach to keep options to manage a diverse set company configuration looks like the only possible way to solve this problem in existing PLM/ERP systems.

What is my conclusion? History keeps customers from moving forward. There are two aspects of complexity in Part Numbers: 1/ complexity of definition and data classification; 2/ historical records of PN in every company including catalogs and existing products. Together, they create a block to make any changes in existing PN schema and prevent companies from migration towards new approaches. New data modeling technologies must be invented to handle existing data as well as supporting customers to migrate into modern PLM and ERP solutions. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Recent Posts

Also on BeyondPLM

4 6
15 January, 2010

I was reading Google Enterprise Blog – Store and share files in the cloud… My hunch is that PLM eco-system...

1 June, 2020

In my recent discussion about Rethinking PLM architectures for Digital Thread, I’ve got an interesting comment about why Files are...

23 January, 2015

Integration of CAD and PDM is a field with long history of battles, innovation and failures for the last 15-20...

2 September, 2010

Summer is finally over. This is a good reason to stop talking about fancy social software and cool Apple’s features....

3 May, 2018

Message on twitter from Jos Voskuil caught me by surprise earlier today.  Jos commented on my OpenBOM blog about Onshape, OpenBOM...

19 April, 2017

I’ve been following F8 conference for the last few days. An annual Facebook gathering is usually a good place to...

30 April, 2023

This weekend I want to come back to basics. You can ask why to do so. With such a high...

14 January, 2013

Last week, I started the conversation about Bill of Materials and modern challenges. BOM is a heavy topic. Previous blog...

16 October, 2009

When I discussed a cloud options for PLM yesterday in my article, I mentioned that a very significant opportunity comes...

Blogroll

To the top