Sequential against intelligent part number systems

I WAS a huge fan of fully coded part numbers. One customer had some part numbers that must have been over 30 characters(maybe some over 40) long and some about 6 or 7.

PTH parts can be the worst because it seems like back in the day a 1N4001 was a 1N4001. But now a lot of customer specify a particular manufacturer.

No matter how much info you have you will always find oddball parts that require more info to spec. I think magnetics are usually the worst.

When I made part numbers for our new ERP system, I went with a hybrid approach. The first three letters say what type of part,res, cap etc. The fourth says if it is PTH or SMT. Then a dash then 5 numbers. The first number is the subclass, chip vs. network etc. for resistors. For two resistors of the same value, size and tolerance we add a -1,-2, ect for the different manufacturers.

I think a good hybrid approach is the best overall approach. Put a lot of consideration into how they will be stocked in the stockroom. You want a system that will automatically sort PTH and SMT resistors for example.

reply »

I prefer simple sequential P/N system. We use digits 0-9 and english aplhabet (total of 34 characters). Letters I and O are ommited to avoid mix-up with digits 1 and 0.

P/N is 6 characters long - long enough to cover ~1.5 billion parts but short enough if you have to write it down manually, spell to somebody over the phone for some reason or even to remember it for a while...

reply »