Vault Custom Numbering Scheme & Insignificant Part Numbering Schemes

[Anonymous]

Are we really advancing? Or are we stuck in the old way of thinking?

Our company would like to institute a non-significant numbering scheme. Fortunately, we are starting from scratch and have no legacy files to worry about. Thanks to PDM software, it's possible to search on properties rather than dissecting a significant part number. Significant part number schemes are no longer needed! This makes part numbering much more convenient and there is no need to have a separate database or excel spreadsheet logging the numbers. All you would have is a sequential "serial number" as your part number to make the part unique. However, Vault could do a better job of automated numbering schemes to further expand their capabilities and open the door for further advancement. Here's why:

With Vault's Custom Number Scheme, you can only assign a part number to a file name. This works great for significant part numbers. But to move toward a non-sig scheme (which has become a big push from a lot of people) I feel strongly that applying a part number to a file name is no longer needed. Instead, I feel the custom numbering scheme should be applied to the part number iproperty. In other words, I don't want the numbering scheme to affect my filenames. This creates problems with skeletal modeling,"make components", and copying designs. The old way of doing things meant that a change in the part number (during pre-release design) would mean a change in the filename. And we all know how changes in the filename effects links. (Vault makes renaming files easy, but if you don't clear your workspace, there is risk of problems.) Why have a part number part of a filename???

Ideally, it would be nice to be able to choose when to assign a part number to the part number iproperty (perhaps trigger upon release) and have this number be automatically generated as the next number in a sequence. Having a rule that is triggered every time a file is created will churn through too many numbers (think how many times you start a file and then bail).

Just thinking. And trying to make things easier for all of us.

[mikel_martin]

Jeff,

Thanks for the input. This is something that I have been thinking a lot about lately.

I agree that there is room for improvement in the current system.

One challenge that I have been thinking on for some time is this:

I assume that the whatever value you want to use as your Identifier for your data, you want to be consistent across your tools.

Example: if you are using a property and a given object has an ID of 1234, I assume that you would want that ID to be available and prevalent when you are in the authoring tool. The problem is that unfortunately I don't control all of the authoring tools and how they behave. Lets take a simple example like MS Word. The only real ID you have that is prevalent enough to be useful is the filename. So, with that being the case do you still think that you would not want the file name to reflect the ID?

I understand that are issues with renaming files (which should be greatly reduced in 2012), and using extra part numbers from files that you scrapped. But those are different problems, so lets assume we can address those. 🙂

One other thought; if your part numbers are truly insignificant numbering schemes, why do you care if they are "burned up" without being used? They don't cost much. 🙂

[Anonymous]

Mikel,

I'm not really concerned about applying this to any other file type than CAD files (Inventor mainly).  I would actually be okay if this originated from with Inventor.

Yes, I agree with you that part numbers are cheap.  However, after a few weeks of trying the custom naming scheme, I was churning through part numbers too quickly.  At that rate, we would have needed a 9-digit part number.  I'd like to keep this at no more than 7.  Something that is realistic if the part numbers are on demand.  Actually 6 digits will do just fine and last us many years.

The part number generator just needs to be shared amongst all users so that everytime a user initiates the part number command, a new and sequential part number is given to them.

Same thing as picking a number from a list in Excel, but automated.

No need to change the file name.

We don't assign part numbers to our MS Word docs.  But I understand if some do.

[mikel_martin]

Jeff,

I understand that you dont want to assign part numbers to word documents. I was just trying to simplify the example (maybe a little to much). But the same idea applies to Inventor. There are workflows where your only ID is the file name. Many other CAD apps do the same. My point being that I agree you dont really want the file name to need to be changed. But I wonder what the experience would be like for many of these applications.

So with the part number, when do you think you would like to have it assigned, if not on part creation?

On check-in, on release, on demand? And why?

As you can probably tell I am very interested in this topic.

If you would like to provide some more feed back in the future please email me your contact information.

That goes for anyone else reading this as well.

[Anonymous]

The workflow doesn't need to be affected by the part number.  I'm not sure what you're talking about with the ID.  I understand that in order to pass "something" through a work flow, you need a file name.  But, how is this related to a part number?  It shouldn't be.

In an ideal world, this is how I'd like to see the part number generated (the whole workflow):

1) Create a new part from template and save the file (ex. bracket.ipt)
2) Create a drawing of the part and save the file, the same name as part (ex. bracket.dwg or bracket.idw)
3) Check the drawing and the part into Vault (comment, "Initial load from Inventor")
4) Change the state of the drawing and the part to "Released".  A part number is then assigned to the part (and copied to the drawing).  The part number is a sequential part number (completely insignificant) and follows the file through the rest of its life.
5) For our company, establishing a part number at the time of release is okay.  For other companies, they may wish to assign a part number before it is released.  Therefore, it should also be possible to assign a part number at any of the steps above (but only once).  Depending on where it is assigned, more or less numbers will be used.  Sure, numbers are cheap, but if one wants to reduce the digits in their part number, I would suggest assigning the number at release.

The trigger that assigns a part number (to the part number iProperty) can come in several forms:
1) Button in inventor that assigns part number (from a shared number generator, potentially in Vault)
2) An administrator selection in the workflows (during change of state) to assign the file a part number property (I would prefer this method since its automated and the administrator can prevent people from forgetting to assign a number to their part.  Although, you could also set up property compliance to prevent people from forgetting.)
3) A separate button within Vault.
4) I'm sure there are more ways, but I've got to get to work! 🙂

Why is all of this important?  With the invention of PDM, it is now possible to manage, sort, and search your files based off properties, versions, releases, etc...  The part number is no different than a property that is searchable.  I feel like too many people are stuck in the old days where part numbers had to be significant because there was no PDM software to organize prints.  The part numbers were used to create unique drawings that could be cross referenced.  The part number was merely a way to look up a part in a book of drawings or in an archaic computer.  Still true today, the part number's purpose is only to create a unique reference for parts.  Since PDM, we can search and filter all of this information from various areas.  It no longer needs to reside in a part number.  Not to mention a FILE NAME!  The part number alone is unique.  With the combination of properties and a unique part number, you have all the information you need.  I feel like I'm not explaining this very well.

On a side note, I'm also a firm believer of being able to keep the part and drawing synchronized with each other.  In otherwords, all data originates from the part and is used to populate properties of the drawing.  Afterall, the drawing is just a reflection of the part.  A drawing is a 2-D expression of a 3-D part...and that's it.  I have a hard time understanding when a drawing will need to be revised (not quick change) and the part not being revised.  The 3-D model is the design.  This is where all information originates.  A change to tolerance on the drawing, doesn't technically change the 3-D model, but the model should be revised as well.  In fact, the model should be revised first (the revision will be copied to the drawing) and then the tolerance on the drawing should be changed.  The drawing shouldn't have its "own" revision.  There should be no way to change the revision of the drawing without revising the part.  I'm getting off track...and need to get some work done...

[Anonymous]

Tried to PM you with my contact info, but your name was "ambiguous".

---

@mikel_martin wrote:

Jeff,

I understand that you dont want to assign part numbers to word documents. I was just trying to simplify the example (maybe a little to much). But the same idea applies to Inventor. There are workflows where your only ID is the file name. Many other CAD apps do the same. My point being that I agree you dont really want the file name to need to be changed. But I wonder what the experience would be like for many of these applications.

So with the part number, when do you think you would like to have it assigned, if not on part creation?

On check-in, on release, on demand? And why?

As you can probably tell I am very interested in this topic.

If you would like to provide some more feed back in the future please email me your contact information.

That goes for anyone else reading this as well.

---

[Anonymous · Accepted solution]

This worked for me:

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Autodesk-Inventor-Customization/iLogic-Sequential-Part-Number-Generato...