Intelligent Part Numbers might be a good idea in “connected world”

Ed, thanks for your comment and brining a controversy in this discussion. I actually like the way you define catalog number – stable identifier for outside world. This stable identifier can be meaningful (intelligent) or meaningless (dumb). But it is still an identifier – Part Number. It often called Manufacturer Part Number or OEM Part Number. In some situation you can get SPN (Supplier Part Number).

Typically PLM implementations are mapping these “numbers” to some “internal” part numbers used inside of organization. In a large established company, these part numbers are coming from ERP (and sometimes from PLM) system. In a smaller company, these numbers can be generated by a person. One of the reasons why PLM implementations prefer not to use outside numbers is because in case of change (which is not controlled by PLM implementation), it will impact product data. Which makes sense, of course.

However, my point is that when we deal with global connected systems, mapping between “internal numbers” and outside world numbers can be impractical. That’s why Octopart is using MPN. But Octopart example is especially interesting because it introduces some way to map Manufacturing Part Numbers to some meaningful numbers used by Octopart.

Best, Oleg

Hi Jos,

I think you pointed on something very important – it is related to the fact properties are spread across systems and multiple intelligent numbers can be used to connect without restructuring data. It is one of the thing Octopart is doing in the example above by introducing CPL Part Numbers. Another interesting point is to use stable identifiers on the web. IMO Octopart is close to the solution, but not there yet. Maybe future progress with CPL will make it happen.

Thanks for your comment!
Oleg

Pete, you are on the right track! ISBN is a good example. Amazon links to books is another good example of persistent identifiers. I probably write a clarification (especially after the discussion with Ed and Jos) – see comments.

Agree – Upverter looks nice. But I haven’t seen many people using it. Do you have any idea why? Is it too new?
Octopart is doing very good job so far. Let’s hope Altium won’t change it in the future.

I think it just takes time. We’re seeing about 350 new engineers make the switch every week right now.

The Octopart CPL is misleading in its intent and effect and, for careful engineers, deeply flawed.

The term “part number” seems confusing, so let’s try to get as precise as possible for this discussion.

Technical part number (or customer part number): Label used to identify the necessary & sufficient technical requirements to fulfill a customer’s specific purpose.
The part’s documentation describes the complete technical requirements. In addition to very basic requirements like value,
package and power, your part may require certain physical, performance, environmental, regulatory, or other characteristics.
No “intelligent” part numbering scheme could hope to encode all requirements for all applications. The part number may encode a few useful bits that help with narrowing the search (although smart numbers are superfluous with a decent PLM system, and are expensive to maintain).

Catalog number (Manufacturer Part Number, OEM Part Number, Supplier Part Number, model number, sales number, order number): Label used to identify a specific manufacturer’s set of specifications.
The part’s datasheet describes the complete technical specifications.
No “intelligent” catalog number scheme could hope to encode all specifications. Instead, the catalog number may encode a few specifications to distinguish the manufacturer’s parts, but only to the extent the manufacturer needs it. For example, a resistor manufacturer wouldn’t encode an 0805 package if it only sells axial- and radial-lead resistors. It certainly wouldn’t try to burden the catalog number with all specifications, such as maximum reflow temperature, REACH compliance, PPM drift over temperature, storage humidity or mass. That stuff is for the part’s datasheet.

Approved manufacturer list (“AML”, also approved vendor list or “AVL”): One or more parts, each identified by its manufacturer’s catalog number, that have specifications that meet the technical part number requirements. Each manufacturer part listed on the AML has been judged fully interchangeable for its intended purpose, and may be intermixed in the same inventory bin.

Octopart CPL: Label used to identify a set of catalog numbers that share similar characteristics. The Octopart CPL attempts to summarize several manufacturer catalog numbers (which are already summaries) into a least common denominator.

Octopart seems to believe that CPL should be used as a public AML. They say CPLs “refer to a set of parts with different MPNs which satisfy the same function.”

If the CPL is intended as an AML, then
1. Octopart guarantees that all manufacturer parts on the CPL list have identical technical specifications, or
2. Octopart reconciles all technical differences between manufacturer parts on the CPL, and publishes its own datasheet to guarantee minimum technical performance.

Of course, Octopart does neither. But if naïve users are willing to accept the CPL without question, then it may create interesting problems in user satisfaction, product performance and perhaps legal liability.

In Octopart’s example part CPL-RES-0603-10K-0.1W, the physical dimensions are a bit different between the Vishay and Yageo 0805 10K resistors. Vishay’s tempco is 100 ppm between 1 and 10 ohms, while Yageo’s is 200 ppm. Vishay specifies its limiting voltage as 75V; Yageo’s maximum is 50V. Each datasheet has specs the other does not. Are these important in most cases? We hope not. But if they do become important, and you need to exclude one, how can this be done if you’ve adopted the CPL as your AML?

Another common example: if I’m a commercial electronics manufacturer and need an IC, I can accept either a commercial or industrial temperature range … for my application. I can add both ICs to my AVL. Since the Octopart CPL doesn’t have a datasheet nor offer any explicit guarantee of interchangeability, we can’t say whether they list one or both ICs under their CPL. Of course, we could inspect today’s CPL list, but this provides no assurance what will be on the list tomorrow.

As you state, “However, my point is that when we deal with global connected systems, mapping between “internal numbers” and outside world numbers can be impractical.” But mapping between internal part numbers and outside catalog numbers is not only practical, it’s the essence of component engineering and has been done for decades.

Octopart admits in their blog they have no problem creating yet another competing numbering “standard”. But they also have no appreciation for the difference between (a) catalog numbers as a search filter, (b) datasheets that actually contain a manufacturer’s part specifications, and (c) technical part numbers that describe customer requirements.

Regrettably, the Octopart CPL will be adopted by small companies as their AML without understanding the impact on manufacturability, quality and reliability.

Kind regards.

CPL cannot help teams manage an AML because an “approved manufacturer list” requires actual approval, not simply inclusion.

Octopart is a data aggregator, and AFAIK claims no expertise in component engineering. The CPL ignores many datasheet specs and reflects no actual production or field experience. Unless Octopart describes their CPL qualification process, assume that CPL includes any part that has a “close enough” catalog number, regardless of performance, quality or cost.

In small companies without experienced engineers, the AML is typically outsourced to the contract manufacturer. The CM knows that its reputation relies on choosing good parts. CMs have components engineers and experienced buyers, and know which parts have worked (and which haven’t).

In small-volume companies using no CM, I’d suggest single-source everything using the selected manufacturers’ datasheets. It’s safer than assuming everything on the CPL is equivalent.

The largest “public AML” is/was published by the US Government (e.g., MIL, NSN). Its success depended entirely on published customer requirements and huge demand, and the government’s willingness to give up some cost savings for consistently high performance. The critical point is that the customer requirements were standardized, and supplier datasheets conformed — not the other way around.

Ah, but which elements? An AML identifies manufacturer parts that fulfill a customer specification. If Octopart is qualifying parts for an imagined “generic customer”, they must explicitly state requirements — a CPL datasheet — so actual customers know whether the part can be used for a particular application.