« Buy SolidWorks. Get $500
14 SolidWorks Video Tips to Get You Started »

Why Smart Numbers are Dumb: SolidWorks Guidelines for File Names

Published
by
Josh
on October 24, 2007
in SolidWorks Tips and Working Smarter
.

Hello! if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the SolidSmack RSS feed or to the free email updates. Thanks for visiting!

recliner.jpg

Everybody likes to know what they are getting. When it comes to organizing files on your computer it’s not any different.Using a smart numbering system may seem like a good ideas at first, but it invariably leads an organization down the wrong path. Why? Simply put, things change. This material become that material, that changes location, on and on till the break of dawn.

If I think about this, and try to come up with a clever analogy, smart numbers are like your favorite recliner. It’s comfy, has a leg rest, but it’s so big it only fits through one door and in one room. So it is with a smart part number. It works, right there.

For example, your part number differentiates between a part and an assembly. If you create a part and later it turns into an assembly, your part number is now meaningless and, even more, it’s confusing. To avoid this type of confusion, here’s a few guideline to use.

I realize I may be stepping on some toes here.
I know the man-years that go into developing naming conventions and numbering systems. This is intended to be a guideline to help out. Smart numbers were useful when files were stored in file cabinets. Today, that is less the case with files being stored servers and data being stored in databases.

Use a sequential alpha-numbering system
The part number only needs to be unique. To get the greatest combination of files with some added comfort, use something like this.

0280A001

This gives you over 1 and half times more numbers than if you went with a straight numbering system and it breaks up the monotony of a straight numerical value, i.e. it’s easier to remember, say and read 280A than 2801956.

Name SolidWorks files the same
SolidWorks has three file types. This will be easier to show than explain. Basically, all the stuff going in the drawing is named the same as the drawing. If you have everything in one folder it would look like this.
solidworks-folder-structure.jpg
This keeps files associated with each other better organized and understood.

Use properties to control the rest
You can create a property for anything you want to control in a part, assembly or drawing. If this is just a field on a drawing you can revise the file to change the property. If it’s used in the part number, you’re in trouble, because, look at that, it’s already been used a gazillion other places.

Think of the other documents
What other documents will you need to generate to capture change? Change Orders? Change Notices? You have a change that affects multiple parts, assemblies, locations, materials, etc. That smart number isn’t going to do much good there. You can vastly uncomplicated your documentation and engineering efforts by having one single sequential numbering system.

Start at 1
You start counting at 1, start your numbering at 1, or rather 0001 for the number of characters you plan to use. Same with revisions, alpha or numeric. Start with 1 or start with A. This way you’ll get files listed nice and clean.

0001
0002
0003
0004…

A
B
C
D…

Smart part numbers are comfy because by human nature we use numbers to remember physical things. The bottom line is, a dumb sequential numbering system will save you from a lot of grief. What has your experience been? Are there exceptions?

Related Posts

If you haven't already, consider subscribing to SolidSmack so you can easily receive updates when new articles are published or announcements are made.

Viewing 26 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Well Josh, this would be a great way to start a numbering system if you have a new company. Here at BWCO we have a system on the AS400 for Mapics called ERS . This system is setup to automatically pull the next number when you type in the 1st three digits of the series. It makes it very difficult to keep similar parts together. Perhaps when we get the graphical verion of Mapics it will go away and we can get a numbering system setup similar to this.
    • ^
    • v
    I agree with most of this.
    I like to keep the numbering plain jane serial numbering. With the big push to use Data Management solutions the need to keep everything organized with similar numbering or an other link is completely unnecessary with a good pdm system in place. A true Data base pdm system (not excel, note pad or access based) will maintain the proper links, referneces as well as provide a larger search forum using the file properties or meta data.
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks guys. It's hard to change numbering when you already have another system going. I get asked about this a lot, so I thought a good explanation would be good.

    Rod, I remember the days of trying to integrate with an AS400 system. We ended up not using it and had an internal PDM system. I hope you get the graphical version soon, but at least some of what you do is automated.

    Chris, you're so right. smart number and what I talk about below make it handy to find in a folder system. When you're using a well indexed database system, file names are not as important. The number on the drawing is important though and that is where it's a good idea to keep the part number dumb.
    • ^
    • v
    Hi Josh-

    I hate sequential numbers! Ah, I feel better now.

    I started out in the 1970's working for first the Suzuki Motorcycle Factory, then I went to work for the Honda Motorcycle Factory, then later Nissan. They all used "super intelligent numbers". I LOVE these types of numbers! BOMS!? We don't need no stinkin' BOMS! The Part Number IS the BOM. For example, these companies denote the Year, Make, Model, Sub-Model, Color, Material, Factory and REVISION right in the number. So, if I'm holding a Crankshaft in my hand and I know the type of car it belongs to, I can GUESS the correct Part Number close enough to find it right away. Conversly, If I see a Part Number, I KNOW the correct Year, Make, Model, SuB-Model, Color, Material, Factory and Revision.

    See, aren't these great?

    Who has more Part Numbers than Honda? Toyota? Yep, they use them too.

    Devon
    • ^
    • v
    Devon, man, you're awesome. This is exactly the example I was looking for.

    I really hope what you’re describing becomes the exception to the above. A lot of company planning and certification departments are still driven by BOMs. What a pain! I’d love to have the model build and conform everything, but we’re all still putting stamps and signatures on paper.

    Ok,ok, here’s the example I use. a gear. If you give it a part number that has (your example) Year, Make, Model, etc., it can only be used for that year, make model, right? It’s great to handle inventory, but not so great for reusability. If I want to use that gear on another model, I need another number, even though it’s the same thing.

    A great way to have both is to use a dumb number for the paper and a property for the part, then ya got a reusable document and an easy to find part. That shiny gear can now be used here, here and here. I add a configuration to change the property and now I can use it there, there and there. Paper is documented; Shop guy can find the part. I think this goes toward like ya say, getting rid of BOMs, to the point the dumb number is just a unique identifier and data builds the part/assembly. Crazy talk?!
    • ^
    • v
    We do something similar as well, but we typically have only 30 parts in our final assemblies. I am starting fresh and for once luck got me on the right path. Most of our projects are similar where just sizes or lengths of items change, but they all still exist. We assign each job a project number, which is sequential, then add the year onto it. For instance our 31st job of this year gets a project number of 1312007. then I use that number in all the files:
    D-1312007-1r0.SLDDRW (drawing 1, revision 0)
    1312007-____.SLDASM (Final assembly)
    1312007-Tube Bundle.SLDASM (Sub assembly)
    1312007-Tube-Rtrn.SLDPRT (single Tube)
    1312007-Channel-Leg (one part of the frame which is used as a leg)
    1312007-...etc

    The trouble is starting a new job, I have to go in and manually rename all the files according to the new project. I need to find a Find Replace file renaming program.

    J.D.
    • ^
    • v
    Hello J.D.-

    SolidWorks Explorer will copy a Project just like you need (with renaming), check it out.

    Devon
    • ^
    • v
    Josh-

    RE Reusability;

    Parts can have more than one Part Number. Just rename all the supporting files to the new Part Number. This is the way Suzuki, Honda, and Nissan do it. So, Parts can have more than one Part Number, so what? Then in the supporting documents, just show the parts are equal.

    In my opinion, all the work either goes into the BOM (which by the way NEVER matches what's acutally being built) or the work goes into the Part Number, which has it's own intelligence built in, which takes the burden away from the BOM.

    Remember, in SolidWorks, the file name IS the Part Number (in the SolidWorks BOM, leverage this data!). This applies to SolidWorks, PDMWorks Workgroup, and PDMW Enterprise.

    Last year, I set up a medical device company using PDMWorks Workgroup and Agile. The Part Number with Revision is shown right in the file name.

    Great post, Josh.

    Devon
    • ^
    • v
    Yikes! I'd be scared of the revision being part of the file name. Our parts undergo at LEAST 10 revisions before settling down. Some have even gone up to 75. Oh, the humanity!

    Still, going "BOM-less" would be nice, especially when your BOMs are all in AS400 and disconnected from all your other data.

    Oh, and your comment about product not being built with what's in the BOM... SO TRUE, so true....
    • ^
    • v
    Hi Bruce-

    If Honda, Suzuki, Nissan and Toyota aren't scared, then neither am I.

    Devon
    • ^
    • v
    It is definitely a plus to see big guys like that using them. It would be nice to see all the different types of numbering system around and what commonality there is (if any) between them.

    I think we can all agree though that either way, the purpose of each is to have a unique number and an automated system to make it nice and easy. :)
    • ^
    • v
    And what about mirrored parts in assembly? If you want mirror in assy (in SolidWorks) you must write any pre or postfix to filename. This pre or post will affect your filname management.
    I am do it very offen and giving the filename postfix -M for example "filename-M.sldprt".

    How do you mirror parts and which name you give them?

    The tru disaster will come, when you are doing drawing for mirrored part. But this is differently discussion.
    • ^
    • v
    Hi Gale, good point. I just give it another dash number. Whenever a new part is created it is automatically given the next dash number. So, if my last part is 000A001-510, the mirrored part I make is 000A001-511 and so on. When I need to detail a mirrored part in a drawing, I will usually only detail the original and reference the other as an opposite. So my drawing view title looks like this:

    ANGLE -510 (SHOWN)
    ANGLE -511 (OPPOSITE)

    Hope this helps!
    • ^
    • v
    WOW, Yes you are right. I tryed now. Is new for me. Because I tought that I must! give the pre or postfix. Now I see that I can type any name of file what I want.

    Thanks for suggestion.
    • ^
    • v
    Josh:
    After slugging the numbers game out for about 10 years as a consultant, and having figured some of this out myself, I agree wholeheartedly with where your comming from. It makes a lot of sense and makes a numbering system much quicker to sort and locate drawings, models and assemblies. Dont take the flack the hardliners give you I played the game in aircraft for 35 years and none of the large frame boys have it figured out as simply as this.
    • ^
    • v
    SolidWorks Explorer is Great for changing and moving files.

    Also, I am sure everyone knows that you never want two files with the same name. SolidWorks will get smart when you go to open the assembly or drawing and make a mess of things.

    So, Never name a part just base plate, that is what the description is for.

    Al
    • ^
    • v
    I definitely agree on using smart numbers. I think everyone must taylor their numbering system to the type of work they do.

    How we name our files can make a big difference when it comes to figuring out what is what.
    Should a filename just be a part number, or should it be more descriptive which will give you more options for searching folders?

    Do you want to work on an assembly in which the parts are just sequential numbers especially if you are trying to fix something left by a predecessor who may have not been following best practices?

    Will the part number/filename affect the way you must model your parts? How will it affect configurations? Will you be able to use design tables? (one part many configs)

    Do you really need different part numbers to use the same part in different projects?
    Does your part numbering system allow you to use all of the power built into SW or must you work around it?

    When it comes to engineering I am a big fan of two things Reuse and modularity. I don't see a seqential numbering system being intuitive to either of my two most base of tenets.

    If we are not going to build intuitiveness into the numbering system then why bother to use expensive and complicated software to model it all when we good use napkins and crayons and a wooden file cabinet.
    • ^
    • v
    Example:
    I use Picasa to manage my photos (it's like a PDM for photos) My camera gives the photo an automatic sequential number. I download the photos into Picasa and add meta-data (tags, captions, etc.) that i need. I use Picas to search and find my photos. If there's something that references that photo (Re-uses it) I don't have to worry about the description not being relevant. I can add a tag or something to the caption. This is the most basic example I can give, but becomes even more important when thousands of documents potentially reference each other.

    Now I don't totally disagree with using smart numbers/descriptions. Things in the feature manager should be renamed. This definitely helps those picking up the work of others. And if you look at my documents folder at home, every folder has a description so I can find things easily. But it's only because I have no automated way of organizing it, like my photos.

    My number one suggestion, is to create that smart number as an attribute (property) instead of making it something that fully defines the component.

    Just to finish, the only time I think smart numbers or descriptions should be used is if you have no way to manage the data or if you have to find things in a wooden file cabinet. :) Then it makes more sense to use smart number so you can go to them quickly.
    • ^
    • v
    I'm all about non intelligent, non sequential, numeric only part numbers with a structured description and meaningful properties.

    We had some very smart fellas create an intelligent part numbering system when we were just starting out. They claimed to be able to know where a part was stored, where it was used and the type of part it was by the part number. They also included the revision level in the part number.

    One year later, I am still fighting the system in an attempt at bringing it into our ERP system. The part number are broken into a project code, part type code and a sequential number. AA-PP-XXX would identify a purchased part for the AA project. What if we use the same part in the AE project? Two part numbers is confusing and using an AA part number in an AE project renders the intelligence useless.

    We also have item types of PT(power train) and CH(Chassis), but some of these items can be purchased parts, so there is additional ambiguity there.

    The idea of putting the rev in the part number has its own issues. Documentation was created using this method and now many of the parts are revised, the documentation is obsolete. It can also cause issues with vendors when you change the part number as a consequence of revision. Most ERP/MRP systems have fields for part number and revision, but rolling the rev as part of the part number creates a new item. Our laser cutter wanted to ding us on set-up for each new revision, as it required them to set-up a new item each time. Revision history is also difficult to manage when the part number changes.

    One place I do use suffixes is for different states of WIP. -80 for a flat pattern sheet metal component, -40 for a bent sheet metal component that requires anodizing, -45 for a component that requires powder coating and no suffix for the completed component. This allows a different value for each stage of completion to be assigned to inventory.

    If a person comes to me with a motor mount bracket and no PN, I would search descriptions for "Bracket, Mount, Motor" with properties relating to material and finish. The search would yield limited matches and I can pull up drawings for the likely matches with a mouse click.

    Yeah, there is the woman at Honda that knows every item number and what that item is by the number. It took her 30 years to learn it and I'm sure she'd have an aneurysm if that system were to change. I'd rather have a system that can be taught in less than an hour, without the ambiguity.